DIU blog posts and comments

Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 30 April 2011The good people in the Bible
A while back, I said that Vashti was the best person in the Bible. And while I still think she's a good choice for that award, I'd like to consider all possible candidates. Here is my attempt to do that. Let me know if I've left out any of your favorite Bible characters.

The Talking Serpent
OK, so maybe he wasn't human, but he was the wisest and most honest character in Genesis. Here's his conversation with Eve.
 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:1-5
And the serpent was correct, according to the Bible anyway. When Eve and Adam ate from the tree of knowledge, they didn't die*, and their eyes were opened to know good and evil.



Eve
 The Bible doesn't say much about Eve. There is only one conversation recorded and that is with a talking serpent. But in it she shows a courageous love of goodness, beauty, and truth.
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat. Genesis 3:6
Hagar
 At Sarah and God's insistence, Abraham sent Hagar and their son Ishmael into the desert. When Ishmael was about to die, Hagar left him under a bush and cried because she couldn't bear to see him die.
And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow shot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. Genesis 21:15-16
Zipporah
Zipporah saved Moses from being killed by God by cutting off the foreskin of their son with a sharp stone. I don't know how she knew what had upset Moses' psychopathic god, but she figured it out quickly and did what had to be done. Then she threw the bloody foreskin at Moses' feet saying, "a bloody husband you are to me."
 It came to pass ... that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. Exodus 4:24-25
The ten honest scouts
 Moses sent out twelve scouts to check out the land of Canaan. When they returned, one of the scouts (Caleb and maybe Joshua) told Moses that it would be easy to invade and conquer the people of Canaan. But ten other scouts disagreed.
The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Numbers 13:32-33
 So God, who only likes good news, killed them for their honest report.
Those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD. Numbers 14:37
Korah and his companions
Moses and Aaron had absolute authority over the Israelites -- until it was challenged by Korah and his companions. Here's what they said to Moses.
Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? Numbers 16:3
So God and Moses arranged a test. If Korah and his companions die a natural death, then God didn't send Moses. But if Korah and his friends (and their families) are buried alive, then God is Moses' special friend.
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 a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. Numbers 16:28-30
The test proved that Moses is God's special friend (since the other guys were buried alive).
 But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.
And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them:
And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.
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. Numbers 16:28-33
The people who complained about God's killings
 During the Exodus, God burned and buried people alive, had people stoned to death, and killed tens of thousands in plagues. So, as you might expect, the people were pretty freaked out about it. Here's what they said:
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
So God sent a plague and killed another 14,700.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment. ...
Behold, the plague was begun among the people. ...
Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred. Numbers 16:44-49



The couple murdered by Phinehas
The Israelites pissed off God by having sex with Moabite women.
the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. Numbers 25:1
So God sent a plague to kill them all. Then Phinehas saw an Israelite man and a Moabite woman,
 One of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman. Numbers 25:6
and impaled them with a spear through their bellies.
When Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand ... and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. Numbers 25:7-8
God was so pleased by Phinehas' double murder that he stopped killing people with the plague, after only 24,000 died. (Well, 23,000 if you believe Paul.)
So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. nd those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. Numbers 25:8-9
The daughters of Zelophehad
 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad ... Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah.
And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Our father died in the wilderness ... and had no sons.
Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.
And Moses brought their cause before the LORD.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. Numbers 27:1-7
The peaceful unsuspecting people of Laish 
The children of Dan ... came unto Laish, unto a people that were at quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire. Judges 18:26-27
Nabal
 When David was fighting with Saul, he hung out "in the wilderness" with a gang of outlaws. While there, he heard about a rich man named Nabal and sent some of his "young men" to pay him a visit. So they went and introduced themselves to Nabal and told him to give them whatever he owned.
David sent out ten young men, and David said unto the young men, Get you up to Carmel, and go to Nabal, and greet him in my name. ...
Give, I pray thee, whatsoever cometh to thine hand unto thy servants, and to thy son David. 1 Samuel 25:5-8
But Nabal was on to David's protection racket. He refused to give his belongings to people he didn't even know just to get them to go away and leave him alone.
And Nabal answered David's servants, and said, Who is David? ...
Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men, whom I know not whence they be? 1 Samuel 25:10-11
When David heard about it, he swore to kill Nabal and all his men (everyone "that pisseth 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
But, as it turns out, God beat him to it and killed Nabal for David,
And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died. 1 Samuel 25:38
and gave David his wife and other stuff.
When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the LORD .... And David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife. 1 Samuel 25:39
Phaltiel
 After Michal helped David escape from her father Saul, Saul gave her away to another man named Phalti.
Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Phalti.
But later, after he had collected a half dozen or more wives, David demanded Michal back. (Heck, he paid 200 foreskins for her!)
And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. 2 Samuel 3:14
Poor Phatiel must have loved her dearly since he "went along weeping behind her."
And Ishbosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Phaltiel the son of Laish. And her husband went with her along weeping behind her. 2 Samuel 3:15
Uzzah 
When the ark was being transported to Jerusalem, Uzzah, one of the drivers of the cart, reached out his hand to steady the ark to keep it from falling. God thanked him in his usual way: he killed him.
And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart. ...
And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor , Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God. 2 Samuel 6:3-7
Michal
David bought his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins. She was the daughter of Saul and her name was Michal. She rescued David from her father by lowering him on a rope through the window (1 Samuel 19:11-17), which was both brave and clever. But what impresses me even more was the way she criticized David for dancing nearly naked in front of God and everybody.
 David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. ...
Michal ... said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! 2 Samuel 6:14-20
Of course God doesn't like it when anyone criticizes David. So he made her die childless. (But not really.)
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. 2 Samuel 6:23
Rizpah
To appease God and end a famine that was caused by his predecessor (Saul), David agrees to have two of Saul's sons and five of his grandsons killed and hung up "unto the Lord."
There was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. ...
Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement. ...
And they answered the king ... Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD. 2 Samuel 21:1-6
So David rounded up and delivered two sons of Rizpah, Saul's concubine, and five sons of his daughter Michal, and they hung them up before the Lord.
The king took the two sons of Rizpah ... whom she bare unto Saul ... and the five sons of Michal ... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death. 2 Samuel 21:8-9
 Rizpah stayed with her dead sons, chasing the birds away in the daytime and animals away at night.
And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night. 2 Samuel 21:10
And God stopped the famine after Saul's two sons and five grandsons were killed and hung up for him.
They gathered the bones of them that were hanged ... And after that God was intreated for the land 2 Samuel 21:13-14
Jeroboam's wife
Jeroboam's wife (the Bible doesn't bother giving her a name) was worried about her sick son. So she went to see the blind prophet Ahijah to see if he could help.
Jeroboam's wife ... arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. 1 Kings 14:4
When she arrived, Ahijah had a message from God regarding her son.
Bhold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. 1 Kings 14:10
Which wasn't particularly good news to Jeroboam's wife, since her sick son had pissed on a few walls here and there.
But it got worse as the prophet elaborated a bit.
Him that dieth of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat: for the LORD hath spoken it. 1 Kings 14:11
So God was going to kill all of the male descendants of Jeroboam, strew their dead bodies on the ground like dung, and use them for dog and bird food.
Oh and her son? He would be dead by the time she got home.
Arise thou therefore, get thee to thine own house: and when thy feet enter into the city, the child shall die. 1 Kings 14:12
 After hearing the words of God from his prophet Ahijah, Jeroboam's wife returned home. And, sure enough, God killed her sick little boy the moment she entered his room.
And Jeroboam's wife arose, and departed, and came to Tirzah: and when she came to the threshold of the door, the child died; 1 Kings 14:17
Vashti: The best person in the Bible?
Vashti refused to entertain the king's drunken guests.
 The king made a feast ... seven days, in the court of the garden of the king's palace ... And they gave them drink in vessels of gold ... and royal wine in abundance.
On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded ... Vashti the queen ... with the crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on.
But the queen Vashti refused. Esther 1:5-12
Job's wife 
In the book of Job, God and Satan play a cruel gambling game with the lives of Job and his family. Satan bets that Job will curse God to his face if Job's life is made unpleasant enough. So God (or Satan, it's hard to tell them apart) kills Job's family and sends various torments upon him.
Job's wife rightly says that if Job is to keep his integrity, he should curse God (for playing vicious games with Satan) and die. She is the only voice of reason in the book of Job.
Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. Job 2:9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* God told Adam that he would die the day that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet he and Eve ate from that tree and lived another 930 years. (In the case of Adam, anyway. The Bible doesn't say how long Eve lived.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/30/2011 03:30:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
38 comments:
 Nameless Cynic said...
Always been partial to Lilith, m'self; Adam's first wife.
In Jewish folklore, God made her from the earth where He made Adam. But she refused to submit to Adam, left, and started having sex with an archangel.
(Does it count as "living in sin" when one of the couple is an angel?)
Technically, I'm not sure if she belongs on your list, since she appears only "between the lines" in the Bible:
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)
But having already made the two of them, God goes back and makes the woman again:
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
She's mentioned I think once in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there's some argument about translation of the word "owl" at one point in the Old Testament - Wikipedia describes it, but I'm too lazy to go looking it up (since I already looked up the Bible verses for you - do I have to do all the work here?)
Sat Apr 30, 04:35:00 PM 2011 
 Shannon said...
Adam and Eve did die after they ate the fruit. Not right away as the Bible might suggest, but they did die (after 900 some odd years)
At least, that's what I've been told by Christians...
Sat Apr 30, 04:53:00 PM 2011 
 teavee said...
I think these people might deserve some recognition.
The Galileans Pilate sacrificed and the 18 killed by a tower; and although a character in a parable, the vineyard caretaker who intercedes for a fig tree. (Luke 13:1-9)
Uzzah who was killed for steadying the ark.
The quiet and secure people of Laish. (Judges 18:10,27)
Sat Apr 30, 06:18:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Shannon,
The Hebrew expression used when God told Adam that he would die literally means in dying you will die. In other words he would begin to die when he ate or touched the fruit of the tree.
Had he not eaten from the tree he wouldn't have died. But eventually, he did die.
Sat Apr 30, 06:36:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Steve,
The serpent didn't actually talk, it was Satan that used the serpent as a mouthpiece much like Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece.
Sat Apr 30, 06:38:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks, Nameless Cynic, for the Lilth suggestion. I looked up the Wikipedia article (I needed to do something, I guess) and found the verse that you referred to (Isaiah 34:14).
I'd like to include Lilth, but even with Isaiah 34:14, the Bible itself doesn't provide enough information about her to justify it.
Sat Apr 30, 07:04:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Shanon and PM: Yeah, that's the standard Christian excuse. They started dying when they ate the fruit. It just took a while (like 930 years of so) for the poison to take effect.
teavee: Thanks for the great suggestions. I'll get to work on adding them to the list.
Sat Apr 30, 07:09:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
PM, you said: "The serpent didn't actually talk, it was Satan that used the serpent as a mouthpiece much like Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece."
What do you mean the serpent didn't talk? Here's what the Bible says: "he [the serpent] said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"
The Bible says nothing about Satan here, so what makes you think it was him? You might as well say it was the Archangel Michael or Jesus (which I guess to you would be the same thing) or Elvis.
And what's this about Balaam's ass. God made a donkey talk and he's proud of it. That's why he put it in the Bible.
Still I'd like to hear your talking ass theory. You say Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece. A mouthpiece for whom? Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Donald Trump?
Sat Apr 30, 07:26:00 PM 2011 
 Nameless Cynic said...
Still I'd like to hear your talking ass theory.
I'm pretty sure that's a scene from Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
Sat Apr 30, 08:45:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
What do you think about these folks?
Ezekiel's wife
Hananiah
Ananias and Sapphira
Balaam's ass (Not really human, I know. But she seemed like a really nice ass.)
Are there any other good people in the Bible? There must be more than those on the list!
Sat Apr 30, 09:18:00 PM 2011 
 Erp said...
Rizpah, Saul's concubine, who had two sons by him. After his death and David becomes king the land has a famine supposedly because Saul had slain some Gibeonites. So David promises the Gibeonites 7 of Saul's male descendants to slaughter. Two of them are Rizpah's children and five are Saul's daughter, Merab's, sons (quite a few early manuscripts actually have Michal instead of Merab). The Gibeonites hang them and leave their bodies hanging. Rizpah sits by the hanging bodies and prevents them from being eaten by vultures and other carrion eaters for several months until David finally decides to bury them. (2 Samuel 21).
Sat Apr 30, 09:50:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks, Erp. I'd forgotten about Rizpah. She definitely deserves to be on the list.
Sat Apr 30, 10:22:00 PM 2011 
 Joker_SATX said...
Good Post. However, I see Good & Evil as different points of view. So I am curious as to what your criteria for Good versus Evil really is?
Sun May 01, 03:26:00 AM 2011 
 twillight said...
Man, pretty low standard must apply to choose good ones from the Bible!
Sun May 01, 03:38:00 AM 2011 
 Robert Hagedorn said...
Ever wonder what Adam and Eve actually did? Do a search: The First Scandal.
Sun May 01, 03:43:00 PM 2011 
 Nelson said...
My choice is Jesus Christ.
There was never a greater person either in the Bible or anywhere else.
Sun May 01, 03:50:00 PM 2011 
 twillight said...
@Nelson
someone who advocated slavery, selfmutilation, absolut obedience, human sacrifice, war, opression of women, extreme torture, genocide, punishment of innocents etc. is NOT considerable as "good" person.
Mon May 02, 12:26:00 AM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Steve,
What I normally do in cases like this is just look at the facts. So, here they are.
1. Serpents and asses don’t talk.
2. The first time the Hebrew word satan appears in scripture is at Numbers 22:22. It is translated as “resister” or “adversary” because that is what the word means. It is used in application to the angel of God, who, by the way, was probably in this case, the logos, Michael, who would much later appear as Jesus Christ. In verse 28 it plainly says that Jehovah opened the mouth of the ass. Balaam, though, thought it was the ass, he didn’t see the angel at first. From this we can gather what spirit creatures are capable of in this regard. (2 Peter 2:16)
3. Did the serpent have legs before God cursed it? Or is it possible that God was actually cursing the spirit creature who had used the innocent serpent. All throughout the scripture is it a literal serpent who is blamed for deceiving Eve or is it Satan, who is often figuratively referred to as a serpent?
4. Eve didn’t sin, she was deceived. Adam sinned because he knew better and wasn’t deceived, but Eve didn’t sin. (1 Timothy 2:14)
Mon May 02, 08:06:00 AM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Lilith, as seen at Isaiah 34:14, has been translated as Screech owl, night monster, nightjar, night hag or simply transliterated. Some scholars think the word is borrowed from Sumerian and Akkadian mythology, Lilitu, a female demon of the air. However, the word probably comes from a root word meaning to twist, similar to the Hebrew word layil or lailah means night from a wrapping itself around or enfolding the earth. The nightjar, which often inhabits ruins like Edom, becomes active around dusk and twists and turns to capture their prey.
Mon May 02, 08:23:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
PM,
You say, "Serpents and asses don’t talk."
Well, they do in the Bible, bub. And here I thought you believed in the Bible, but I guess not. Oh ye of little faith.
I still have some questions about your talking ass theory, though.
You say, "The first time the Hebrew word satan appears in scripture is at Numbers 22:22. It is translated as “resister” or “adversary” because that is what the word means. It is used in application to the angel of God, who, by the way, was probably in this case, the logos, Michael, who would much later appear as Jesus Christ."
So the "adversary" in Numbers 22:22 refers to Satan, who is really the archangel Michael, who, as everyone knows, is actually Jesus.
Therefore, Satan, the archangel Micheal, and Jesus are all the same person? That's quite a Trinity you've got there, PM!
Which mans, I guess, that it wasn't the ass that was talking in Numbers 22, it was Jesus (aka Michael, aka Satan).
Jesus is the archangel Michael, Satan, and Balaam's ass. Three separate persons in one talking ass!
I guess it is kind of obvious when you think of it.
Mon May 02, 10:51:00 AM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
The Hebrew word satan simply means adversary or resister just as the various forms of the Hebrew el (god) simply means anyone or anything that is considered mighty or venerated. So the words god and satan are not names, they are words.
When these words are used without the definite article ha they can be applied to anyone. So, since the angel, probably Michael in this case, positioned himself before Balaam as an adversary or resister, the Hebrew word without the definite article was used.
Mon May 02, 12:52:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
PM,
OK, so Jesus (aka Michael) was the angel in Numbers 22 that was invisible to humans, but not to donkeys. Yet Balaam (and presumably other humans) could hear the voice of Invisible Jesus when he said, for example, in verse 32,
"Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times?"
Which is a marvelous thing and a wonder, but I'm still unclear about who was speaking when Mr. Ed (I mean Balaam's ass) was talking.
You've already told us that "serpents and asses don't talk," and that "the serpent didn't actually talk, it was Satan that used the serpent as a mouthpiece much like Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece."
But if Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece, who was the ass speaking for? You say the serpent spoke for Satan; who did the ass speak for? Jesus and Michael, God, Satan, or someone else?
It couldn't be Jesus and Michael, since he (they?) were the invisible angel that the ass was talking to. Otherwise they'd be talking to themselves, which would make a silly story even sillier.
It couldn't be God because that would make an ass out God when she said this in verse 30: "And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day?"
That leaves Satan, I guess. And yet, Michael/Jesus seemed to like the ass a lot, saying stuff like this in verses 32-33:
"And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? ... the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive."
So I don't think the ass was speaking for Satan.
I think you just need to face it, PM, even if you can't believe it. The ass spoke for herself.
Mon May 02, 01:51:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
"But she seemed like a really nice ass."
Not rounded and pink, as you probably think, it was gray, had long ears and ate grass. :-)
Steve
Mon May 02, 03:00:00 PM 2011 
 RaptorJesus said...
Why is it that most all the "special" people in the bible who are "good, holy, and blamless" are such cruel, muderous, and just plain crazy people?
And yet some how its still a "good" book? WTF?
Mon May 02, 04:45:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Steve,
I just want to say that the point of the Bible is to give, as much as is needed or possible, the opportunity for an informed position, whether believing or unbelieving and there are two things that I have always personally admired about you.
1. You put a great deal of effort in making an informed choice and
2. You allow a forum for those who disagree with you.
I do appreciate your effort though we seldom agree.
Tue May 03, 05:58:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Raptor Jesus,
Jesus challenged the rich man that called him good, saying that none were good except Jehovah God.
The holy good and blameless are a product of your great expectations and if I may be so bold, stupidity.
Atheists always fuck that up. If for nothing more than fun.
Well who cares? But you.
Tue May 03, 10:09:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
PM ,
Steve's positions are informed, and would normally be convincing in an objective debate situation. Unfortunately in the religious realm he is up against the irrational. In this blog he has asked the rational questions which in a normal debate would require a rational answer. (I have to chuckle at using the word rational in the context of an ass speaking, but oh well.)
1. But if Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece, who was the ass speaking for?
2. Therefore, Satan, the archangel Micheal, and Jesus are all the same person?
3. What do you mean the serpent didn't talk? Here's what the Bible says: "he [the serpent] said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"
4. (Am I wrong about the magic dates and numbers (4026, 607, 2520, 1914)? Do you disagree with the JWs on their significance?) From the other blog…
Even you can see how confusing the bible becomes if even the clearly stated stuff can be altered into meaning something quite the opposite. You stated that when we read the words god and satan they are not referring to God or Satan they are just words. That would be like reading about Abe Lincoln and his name could mean any president. If I came to that conclusion I would discount all books about Abe Lincoln as irrational. What kind of author would be that misleading?
You rely heavily on your interpretation of the Hebrew to English, is that your doctorate area? If it is, I would say “go for it”, but if you are an armchair quarterback then you are up against scholars that have studied those words for a living and would heartily disagree with you. In the meantime you’re stating a different Hebrew meaning for a word that is outside the normal just clouds the argument. My golfing buddy in Dallas had a doctorate in New Testament Greek and devoted his life’s work to translating difficult New Testament versus. It is not as easy as looking it up in a book and picking the one that fits your argument. Preachers do this all the time and cause a great deal of harm in the way of confusing the all ready confused and misled.
Dan
Wed May 04, 12:15:00 PM 2011 
 trog69 said...
Good morning, Mr. Wells, et. al.
After my previous comments, I figgered I should at least acknowledge the host. As an apatheist, I have tried to read the bible, but I just don't have the patience, nor, since I find the entire Christian religion utterly ridiculous, do I have the will to push myself.
So, I am heartily grateful for your efforts here in providing some insights into this topic. As for me, until I get a straight answer as to why a god, having the entire universe at it's disposal/creation, would bother with the sordid details of one of it's science projects to the point where it decides that it must send itself to Earth as a human representation, in order to placate itself for it's pet's alleged transgressions, and...blahblahblah, I can't see why I should cheat my grandkids by wasting time reading that drivel, when we could be out flying a kite, or looking through the telescope.
Keep up the great work.
Dan, great point about how the oh-so many religious leaders have fudged the terminology to fit their views on biblical accuracy/relevance.
Thu May 05, 07:14:00 AM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Dan,
The so called skeptic tends to have a false sense of rationality. The rational doesn’t have a fixed point. It would be counter productive, for example, to assume it is irrational that man could fly before man had discovered that he could in fact do so. Unless someone challenges the rationality of that assumption which was based upon a faulty premise the only thing stopping man from discovering flight would be the irrational in the guise of the rational.
If a “skeptic” says there is no god it demonstrates two possible facts. 1. They don’t know the simple meaning of the word god and or 2. They are making an uninformed statement of opinion which isn’t testable and therefore can’t accurately be stated as rational fact.
1. But if Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece, who was the ass speaking for?
The ass wasn’t speaking. The angel was speaking on behalf of the ass.
2. Therefore, Satan, the archangel Michael, and Jesus are all the same person?
No. Satan and the archangel Michael are two different spirit creatures and Michael came to the Earth as a man.
3. What do you mean the serpent didn't talk? Here's what the Bible says: "he [the serpent] said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"
Which is why I pointed out that Peter, talking about Balaam’s ass, said “voiceless beast of burden made utterance with the voice of a man.” What the Bible is saying is that Satan spoke to Eve through the serpent. The serpent didn’t talk, and, throughout the rest of the Bible who is blamed for deceiving Eve? The serpent or Satan?
4. (Am I wrong about the magic dates and numbers (4026, 607, 2520, 1914)? Do you disagree with the JWs on their significance?) From the other blog…
The dates given by me and the Jws are not magic they are based upon Biblical Chronology, as well as historical, archaeological and astronomical observations. Variations in these, as in the case of 607 B.C.E. are due to historical inaccuracies. None of these dates are absolutely certain any more than archaeological or historical are.
The Hebrew word satan means adversary, one who resists. Since the angel who became known as Satan was the foremost adversary the word, only when accompanied by the definite article ha applies to him. The Hebrew variations of El, translated as god simply means anyone or anything that is deemed as mighty or venerated. The Bible mentions many gods, including mortal imperfect men such as Moses, and the Judges of Israel. Other gods mentioned by the Bible are Jesus, the angels, Tammuz, a deified Sumerian King, Baal, Satan, Jehovah, Ashtoreth, and many others. Paul said that ones own belly could be a god. Gods of stone, wood. This definition of God is the same as our English modern definition. If anyone or anything can be a god it is foolish to think that no gods exist.
This is the same as saying Abraham Lincoln was a man, was a president.
These things are only confused by the skeptical who begin from a faulty premise.
Thu May 05, 07:58:00 AM 2011 
 Dan said...
When two schizophrenics meet and they both believe themselves to be Napoleon, they will readily accept that the other person could be Napoleon as well. It is much the same with religious folks. They will readily accept concepts like the trinity, (three different entities all claiming to be God but only one can be), asses used as mouthpieces or talking asses and serpents used as mouthpieces or talking serpents. . That is what I am generally dealing with when I use the term irrational. Only to schizophrenics and religious adherents can impossibilities become everyday facts.
A skeptic would still argue that humans can’t fly, at least on this planet. When one does we will have to all stop and redefine rationality as it relates to flying humans. Airplanes and hang gliders are no different then scuba gear, humans can no more fly then they can breathe underwater.
You are wrong; it is religion that blurs the lines between rationality and irrationality. In Science a position exists to be proven wrong. But don’t get me wrong, I am not in the crowd that condemns irrationality. I believe it is part of human evolution to move from needing invisible authority figures to trusting our own brains to give us the correct solution to life’s puzzle. Those of us that would count ourselves on the skeptical side realize we have escaped irrationality by a small statistical margin. I would never view a skeptic’s position as superior to a religious view. I would just view religion as improvable. The grand puzzle may someday include some type of energy or particle that has attributes that we currently do not understand. Maybe this is the god particle, I don’t know and I am not interested in doing the heavy lifting to find it. I take solace in knowing there are physicists that are interested and open to this idea. In the mean time I choose to reject all miraculous thinking because it is dangerous to the human race. It all ends in some kind of apocalypse. In the recent case of youthful JW’s, they were instructed to bypass higher education because it would be wasted, since the world was going to end. Don’t it is not just the JW’s; my Father lived his whole life believing his generation was the last. He died last year at 89 and never saw the rapture, second coming, millennium, or trumpets in the clouds calling him home. It isn’t just the JW’s that get their time frames messed up. He was a pastor in a main line fundamentalist group.
“Paul said that ones own belly could be a god. This definition of God is the same as our English modern definition. If anyone or anything can be a god it is foolish to think that no gods exist.”
You are right, if your definition of god includes “ones own belly” Then I have engaged what limited intellect I possess on arguing with either a schizophrenic or someone who lives in a continual hypnotic state. I have no answers for your constantly moving definition of god. It includes whatever reality you are in at any given moment. My bad.
Thu May 05, 10:22:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Dan - You are wrong; it is religion that blurs the lines between rationality and irrationality. In Science a position exists to be proven wrong.
Pathway - Thats what is wrong with you. You can't "prove" religion wrong.
I really feel sorry for you. But, you know, you are only ignorant and xenophobic. If you would just learn about that which you test instead of being spoonfed science that exists only to make you feel intellectual while being totally ignorant.
You would have it made. Like me.
When I say religion can be proven wrong I mean it. I don't assume it in the guise of science.
Fucking idiot atheists.
Fri May 06, 07:35:00 PM 2011 
 uzza said...
Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece
Thanks for that mental image guys.
Fri May 06, 08:48:00 PM 2011 
 quo_vadis said...
Has anyone suggested Ruth (aka Rut) & her mother-in-law Noomi (aka Naomi)?
The two of them didn't do anything really great but at least they were kind to each other & in contrast to other biblical characters they were peaceful & didn't use any violence. Ruth even "clave unto her", eventhough I am not sure whether Ruth clave to her Mother-in-law Noomi or her sister-in-law Orpah, it nevertheless means that Ruth is an affectionate person.
Some people might be tempted to claim that Ruth (advised by Noomi) tricked Boaz into marriage because Ruth seduced him while he was drunk but did women in this society have much choice?
Sun May 08, 10:12:00 AM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Dan,
When one of the two takes it upon himself to irresponsibly and with malice diagnose anyone who disagrees with them as schizophrenics I know that there is no cause for discourse.
Xenophobia isn't a religious thing, is it.
Mon May 09, 11:27:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
“When I say religion can be proven wrong I mean it. I don't assume it in the guise of science.”
I probably spent too much time mulling over this comment this past week, but in the end decided to take it as a challenge. Steve is so much better at this than I am but I will attempt for my own sake to compile a few ways in which science has proven religion wrong.
1. Bacteria, virus, and genetics cause disease, not sin; these were all invisible to the religious writers.
2. One of the arguments for Creation rested on the lack of transitional species. The fossil record has turned up approximately 175. Living animals such as the platypus have retained certain reptilian traits that are no longer found in modern mammals as well as the traits of aquatic animals.
3. The planets orbit around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair the Roman Catholic Church’s issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture." The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.” Wikipedia Quote. This happened after Copernicus died.
4. Pregnancy is the result of a sperm uniting with the egg, not some kind of blessing or curse.
5. The earth is not 10,000 years old (based on a liberal interpretation of biblical genealogy). The Big Island of Hawaii is 800,000 years old and is the youngest of the Hawaiian chain.
6. The church practiced the superstition of blood letting to balance body fluids for hundreds of years. To argue it was killing the patients was heresy.
7. The great flood could not have covered the entire earth; science has shown that the necessary volume would be impossible due to the closed system of our atmosphere. The offending amount of water would roughly fill the moon.
8. I have many favorite memories of rainbows and a favorite song about them so no one who knows me would say I am overly analytical about this phenomenon, but one thing a rainbow is not is a sign from God that he will never flood the earth again. Science has saved us that indignity by allowing even a child to understand that a rainbow involves light and droplets of water. “A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines on to droplets of moisture in the Earth’s atmosphere.” (Wikipedia) Because we have been told this story so many times it sounds plausible. Since the great flood was so devastating, as children it was easy to associate it with the first rainbow. But as adults it sounds more like a fairy tale, we would have to assume there was no rain or clouds before the flood, which is actually absurd. If that were true it would mean a complete change in the ecosystem. If God had said “the ocean will appear blue as a sign that I will never flood the earth again it would just seem odd at best. But we are dealing with the exact same thing; wavelengths of light passing through water. Whether a great flood occurred or not, rainbows existed before as well as after and were not a result of a covenant between God and Noah.
(the blogger required that I do this in two sections.)
Fri May 27, 08:57:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
(part 2)
What exactly happened when Christianity took over Europe? The assumption among Christians was that it was all good. It’s necessary to check out what it replaced. It replaced a Greek civilization that initiated intellectual enquiry, experimental science, and the critical examination of all ideas. This was a greater freedom than Judaism had conceived. And to Christianity it was insufferable.
“Christianity stamped out intellectual enquiry and the free criticism of ideas. It put a stop to science. It tried to lay down absolute “truths” in which all human beings must believe. In short, Christianity brought darkness where there had been light. The darkness persisted, sustained deliberately by an intolerant and cruel Church, for a thousand years and more, until the Enlightenment brought a new dawn to Europe and Europe’s greatest product, America.”
I don’t know who wrote that last paragraph but I liked it enough to copy it to my collection of quotes.
Fri May 27, 08:59:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
Daystar:
My reference to schizophrenics was one used by (Julian Jaynes (February 27, 1920 – November 21, 1997) an American psychologist, best known for his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976), in which he argued that ancient peoples were not conscious)
He simply pointed out how people with this problem will easily accept the impossible as reality. (The Napoleon example) There appears to be a complete range of humans at this time in our evolution. On the one end is the skeptic that requires objective reproducible proof for everything (Randi institute, would be an example).On the other end of the spectrum would be schizophrenics who would readily accept many versions of reality if it fit their current cause or support their current state of mind. I was not suggesting you actually had that problem, it just seemed like your definition of god shifted with each discussion. Hope this adds some clarity, if not let it be know I am a proud participant of the group you affectionately deem as "Fucking idiot atheists." Not the usual name I hear from my religious friends when we discuss some version of magical thinking, but was worth a chuckle. Dan
Fri May 27, 09:56:00 PM 2011 
 Mark said...
What about Jephthah's daughter?
Probably had a bit of a mental health problem, and/or was just very unhappy with life (probably due to having a mass murderer for a dad). Jephthah's made a vow, which costs his daughter her life, and she's just like 'Yeah, whatever', and encourages him to keep the vow even though it means she gets killed. Even if she was probably pretty unhappy with her life, encouraging her dad to keep his promises no matter what is still quite commendable isn't it?
Tue Feb 05, 01:52:00 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 April 2011What really happened to Jesus
There are many beliefs in the great vat of stupidity.
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/27/2011 01:06:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
19 comments:
 Joker_SATX said...
I usually troll this blog but I had to make a comment here...I couldn't resist.
I am going to Google that You Tube Video because that is going to land on my "From the Pulpit" post this coming Sunday. Along with my thoughts on it...
What's my take on it? All I have to say is summed up in one word.
"Really?"
And If I had told the Jehovah's once, I have told them a million times. Out of the 144,000 I am the second one in line.
"Why the Second?", you may ask?
The answer is elementary. It is because the 1st guy holds the door open for me!
Laugh at Joker
Wed Apr 27, 02:11:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Wow! That must really be old. It reminded me of some of the Saturday morning cartoons I watched as a kid.
Wed Apr 27, 07:12:00 PM 2011 
 Linus said...
I thought the original Jesus story was a bit contrived to be honest, but now it finally makes sense!
Wed Apr 27, 09:06:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Yeah, PM, it sounds like the old cartoons.
Do you think the story is about right, though? Is Jesus really the archangel Michael? Did Jehovah destroy Jesus' body after he died and then recreate another one (or maybe even several) to make his disciples think he had really been resurrected? Will there only be 144,000 in heaven? Is Armageddon coming soon? Will only JWs survive?
Wed Apr 27, 09:40:00 PM 2011 
 The Wise Fool said...
I think they stole that raised sword cut-away from He-Man. By the power of Grayskull, Archangel Michael has the power! :-)
That is seriously messed up!
Wed Apr 27, 10:28:00 PM 2011 
 Paul Baird said...
As explanations go, that makes as much sense as any of the other supernatural ones.
I can't see how any Christian could seriously criticise it.
Sceptics on the other.... :-)
Wed Apr 27, 11:33:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Do you think the story is about right, though?
Not exactly.
Is Jesus really the archangel Michael?
Without a doubt.
The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says of Michael: "a superhuman being, in regard to whom there have in general been two rival opinions, either that he is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or that he is one of the so-called seven archangels."
Did Jehovah destroy Jesus' body after he died and then recreate another one (or maybe even several) to make his disciples think he had really been resurrected?
No. That is the Watchtower trying to make sense out of having gotten it wrong.
When I was about, I don't know, 7 or 8 years old a little old JW lady was talking to my mom telling her about Jesus, and was explaining this to her and I corrected her. I reasoned, though never having read the Bible, that if Jesus sacrificed the body that he had, to take it back would be wrong. It would be like paying for a candy bar and then demanding the money back. She argued with me but years later the Watchtower changed their teaching to agree with me.
So that video must be quite old. I'm 44 now.
Jesus existed in heaven in spirit form before the earth was created. In fact before the angels were created. Jesus was the first of Jehovah God's creation, and all other things were created through him.
In this prehuman existence Jesus was the logos or word, in other words, spokesperson for God. When an angel appeared on earth as a man it was likely Jesus.
After his body, as Jesus, was sacrificed and he came back down as a man he used a different body, which is why they often didn't recognize him.
Will there only be 144,000 in heaven?
There will only be 144,000 people who will go to heaven in spirit form to rule with Christ and judge. Why? Because it wouldn't be fair to sinful man to be judged only by Jehovah and Christ who have never known what it is like to live in sin.
Is Armageddon coming soon?
Soon is a relative term. We are living in the time of the end, but we have been since Jesus came. It could be tomorrow or it could be a thousand years. No one knows.
Will only JWs survive?
No, and the JWs don't teach that. They will be the first to admit that there will be a resurrection of the unrighteous as well as the righteous.
Thu Apr 28, 08:16:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
PM,
You believe, "without a doubt," that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Wow. That is a strange thing for a skeptic to believe "absolutely."
But then you have such extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary belief. The Imperial Bible Dictionary. I guess that settles it.
And I'm glad to hear that "the Watchtower changed their position to agree with" you. I guess that makes you the source of the "new light" they're always talking about. You must be the "faithful and discreet slave." And you're right here commenting on my blog. What an honor.
Sheesh! So 144,000 spirit creatures are going to judge us after we die. I'd have never guessed that.
You say that "we are living in the time of the end, but we have been since Jesus came." Are you talking about the first time (when people actually saw him) or the last time (in 1914 when no one did)?
And what's this about the "resurrection of the unrighteous?" I thought you (and the JWs) believed that non-JWs ("the unrighteous") were going to just die (if they are lucky enough to die before Armageddon) and that was the end of it.
Thu Apr 28, 10:23:00 AM 2011 
 Paul Baird said...
"There will only be 144,000 people who will go to heaven in spirit form to rule with Christ and judge. "
It'll be like X Factor but with more judges then ?
Do we know if Simon Cowell will be a judge ?
Thu Apr 28, 10:59:00 AM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Paul,
For my sake, I hope the judges are a great deal more forgiving than Simon Cowell.
Thu Apr 28, 08:50:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Steve,
Even a skeptical natured person believes when they have good reason to believe.
The Imperial Bible Dictionary isn’t the basis for my belief, it only concurs. Lets you and me just go over the facts. I trust you know the Bible well enough for me not to have to support them with scriptural references but they can be given upon your request.
1. Jesus existed in heaven before the earth was created. He was the first of the creation and all things were created through him. So he had a pre-human existence.
2. Other than Jehovah himself, only Jesus is the only one above, or in charge of, if you like, the angels. Thus the voice of an archangel.
3. The term archangel, when used in the Bible is always in the singular. The term itself implies the foremost of the angels, so, if the Imperial Bible Dictionary is correct, that there is only two rival opinions regarding who Michael is, one that he is Jesus, or two merely one of the “so-called” seven “archangels” which is more likely to be the case?
4. There is no reason not to think Jesus and Michael are the same.
I once posted a list, it might have been at the SAB forum, about “a mile long” (with about 50 or more names) with references to Bible scholars and Bible resources other than the Watchtower who thought Michael was Jesus.
Regarding the resurrection of the unrighteous consider this:
Act 24:15 (NWT) and I have hope toward God, which hope these [men] themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
And from the Reasoning From Scripture book, under “Resurrection” published by the Watchtower:
“Acts 24:15: “I have hope toward God . . . that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people who, out of ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected. The Bible does not answer all our questions as to whether certain specific individuals who have died will be resurrected. But we can be confident that God, who knows all the facts, will act impartially, with justice tempered by mercy that does not ignore his righteous standards. Compare Genesis 18:25.)”
Thu Apr 28, 09:17:00 PM 2011 
 MagpieinMadrid said...
TPM,
How do you know that the Bible is correct?
"Even a skeptical natured person believes when they have good reason to believe".
I see no good reason to believe in a book that has no provable factual basis, has been mis-translated several times over, and cannot be proved to be an accurate record of historical events. For example, you quote Genesis. Who wrote this? When? Is what you read what was originally written? You quote Acts: are you aware of the errors made in translation (read, for example, "Misquoting Jesus")
All of your points need to be proved with facts not opinion, otherwise everything you say has no credibility.
Fri Apr 29, 06:47:00 AM 2011 
 Daystar said...
MagpieinMadrid,
You have to ask yourself the same questions as you would ask me. How do you know the Bible isn't correct?
How do I answer your question? I know where it is and where it isn't correct and why and I have, no doubt, put a great deal more thought into it than any skeptic, atheist, agnostic, etc. I have ever encountered.
Moses wrote Genesis in the wilderness in 1513 B.C.E.
Most of the errors you vaguely refer to are only errors in your understanding. Though there are errors in translation, and I am aware of those.
A study was once conducted in which a thousand years of translation of the book of Isaiah was compared, and within a chapter there were three letters, a scribal error, which added the word "light" and didn't change the meaning of the text.
To assume there must be all of these errors which completely change the meaning is an atheist flaw in thinking. Not really thinking, just ignorantly repeating whay you have heard.
I know because I used to be an atheist.
Fri Apr 29, 09:39:00 AM 2011 
 twillight said...
Wow, PM's believes really grew odd way!
Anyway, where to know the Bible is a failure? How about CHECKING THE DATAS?
The Bible says Earth (and the Universe) = ca. 6K years old. Fact is, Earth = 4.5 billion years old, theUniverse is 15 billion (or older maybe).
And so on, and so on.
Maybe PM overthinked this if he still think it is flawles...
Fri Apr 29, 10:04:00 AM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
twillight,
There are two problems with your criticizing the Bible for its being incorrect regarding the age of the Earth and Universe.
1. Over the last 100 years science has changed its estimation of the age of the universe many times, so just because the Bible doesn't aggree with science doesn't mean the Bible is the one in error.
2. The Bible doesn't actually state the age of the Earth or the Universe and it certainly doesn't state that they were created in 6 literal days, or 144 hours.
Fri Apr 29, 01:41:00 PM 2011 
 twillight said...
@PM
Science CORRECTED itself, AND THE SAME TIME got abolutly sure the Bible is in absolute mistake.
And yes, the Bible DO states the 6K year age (if you really need, I can give full data here), and it DO states literal days.
Anyway: the Bible provides SCIENTIFIC TESTS for validation of gods (any god, including Jealous). As Jealous FAILS those tests, there is the 100% proof that the Bible is incorrect bullshit, not worth to follow by its own standards.
But you want more failed datas? Just a quick list:
- No garden of Eden guarded by cherubim anywhere
- No global flood ever
- No egyptian captivity
- No Exodus
- No military conquest of Joshua, especially not any jewish attack on city of Ai
- Insects have 3 pair of limbs (= 6 in all) not 2 pair (= 4 legs)
- No zombies recorded in ancient Jerusalem
- The world did not end 2000 years ago
Sat Apr 30, 03:31:00 AM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
More reference regarding Jesus as Michael the archangel.
Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus."
_________________________
W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64.
_________________________
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod."
_________________________
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
_________________________
John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
_________________________
Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.
_________________________
The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985
_________________________
Smith's Bible Dictionary - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40"
_________________________
Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39
Sat Apr 30, 12:24:00 PM 2011 
 trog69 said...
Not really thinking, just ignorantly repeating whay you have heard.
I know because I used to be an atheist.
I hate to be the bearer of such bad news, but just because you are ignorant, it doesn't necessarily follow that all atheists are, too.
Reading your attempts to "prove" your points, I'm reminded of the Bethesda Softworks fora, where you can find many posts explaining the minutiae of the Elder Scrolls, and myriad responses debating said opinions.
Thu May 05, 06:52:00 AM 2011 
 Aline N. said...
Fuckin psychotic god!!! PS, I like how the 144,000 were all white in their depiction in the cartoon. Pfeww. I won't be part of them....
Sat May 14, 03:08:00 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
    
 22 April 2011A Muslim / Mormon Good Friday to you!
We all know what Christians believe about Jesus' death. It's impossible to live in the western world without hearing the crucifixion stories, especially around this time of year.
But what about Muslims and Mormons? Do they have any cool Good Friday stories?
You betcha!
Muslims just deny the whole thing. Jesus (peanut butter and jelly be upon him) was a prophet and Allah would never allow one of his prophets to die by crucifixion. (Allah saves that for his enemies.)
No, according to the Quran, Jesus didn't die by crucifixion.
Oh sure, the Jews like to brag about crucifying Jesus (we've all heard them do that!), but they didn't really. It just looked that way to them.
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them. 4:157a
Allah and Jesus faked the whole bloody mess. Jesus beamed up to heaven and had some stand-in do the crucifixion for him. (Some Muslims say it was Judas.)
And lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. 4:157b-8
And what about the Mormons? What do they believe about it?
Well, they've taken a crazy story and made it even crazier.
Remember how in the Bible story it got dark for three hours just before Jesus died? Well, in the Book of Mormon the darkness lasts for three days!
For three days there was absolutely no light -- not from the sun, moon, or stars, or from candles, campfires, or fireflies. And this was in North America!
It came to pass that there was thick darkness upon all the face of the land ... And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at all; And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land ... It came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen. 3 Nephi 8:20-23
Of course that's not what the Bible says. Matthew, Mark, and Luke say it was dark for three hours just before Jesus died. (It's one of the few things those three guys agree on.) But that's because the evil Catholics changed the plain and precious shit in the Bible.
The Bible stories say that there was an earthquake when Jesus died. Well, the Book of Mormon tops that one, too. Not only was there an earthquake, but entire cites sunk into the ocean, were burned, or were completely destroyed. The whole earth was deformed.
The city of Zarahemla did take fire. And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned. And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah that in the place of the city there became a great mountain ...
The whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth ...
And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate. ...
And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth. 3 Nephi 8:8-17
And you thought the zombie story in Mathew 27:52-53 was crazy!
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/22/2011 02:05:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
8 comments:
 Measure said...
A mormon would say the hours and days time frames do not contradict since they were in separate parts of the world.
What I'm more interested in is what possible atmospheric conditions could exist that would prevent torches and candles from burning, yet not kill everyone.
Once again the Book of Mormon proposes a ridiculous fact and mormon adherents must ignore them.
Fri Apr 22, 02:32:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
What are you trying to do here, Steve? Mix the Mormons and the Islams into one big vat of stupid for your readers?
Great. I'm sure there is a market for that. You didn't mention the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now that would be a challenge.
What do they say about this bullshit.
I mean, honestly, if I'm sitting around this easter (Easter comes from the pagan cellebrations of Astarte, the so called queen of heaven, consort of Baal (Satan) in the blah blah blah . . . you probably already know it and most of your so called atheist (which I think is an idiot term - you might as well be a "Christian") are, this very morning standing around watching their young'uns hunt eggs for the golden prize.
I mean its a joke and you the atheists have nothing more than the punchline.
Sat Apr 23, 08:56:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
@ThePathwayMachine,
What are you TRYING to do here ?
I've no idea what your comment means, but you have a nice turn of phrase..
Please make your point again, but coherently.
Thank you.
Tue Apr 26, 04:46:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Shanksta,
I was, in my usual criptic manner, trying to point out that Mormons, Muslims and Christians don't have a monopoly on the absurd. As I point out on The Pathway Machine Absurdity it is more to do with human nature than religion.
Easter, for example, is cellebrated by atheist as well as Christian children. The celebration of the pagan goddess of fertility, Astarte, the queen of heaven and consort of Baal seems, at least to me, absurd from a Christian as well as an atheist perspective.
You Tube Video
Wed Apr 27, 06:49:00 PM 2011 
 Tony said...
I believe the Muslims and Mohamed are unknowing but the best thing is if I am wrong my punishment isn't necessarily death but it may be banishment...
Qur'an 5:33
the key word is that exile from the lands is acceptable... AND for there to be "lands" means there is a "boundary" where Islam takes precedence and then there is a boundary were where sanity takes over...
Bye bye Islam, I'll be exiled every time.
Islam in its scripture accepts that Allah is limited and their land is not my land... I'll have them not exile me from anywhere because I belong where I am. I'll allow me to exile me from their land... unless of course they perfer to kill, crusify or mutilate me... but why do any of that when I can just leave their limited land and limited views?
Thu Apr 28, 02:51:00 AM 2011 
 skanksta said...
So, are you're saying..
"Atheists that have parties at Easter - where they give their kids chocolate eggs - are just as deluded as folks that believe that the dead are routinely risen up by (various) spiritual beings"
?!
Thu Apr 28, 04:07:00 AM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Shanksta,
Exactly.
Thu Apr 28, 08:19:00 AM 2011 
 nazani said...
Your mention of the destruction on Good Friday reminds me that there's this site on Mormon archaeology- have fun!
http://www.bmaf.org/
Thu May 19, 02:45:00 PM 2011 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.





Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 16 April 2011Vashti: The best person in the Bible

It's hard to find good people in the Bible.
There are lots of bad guys, though. Noah, Lot, Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Samuel, David, Elijah, Elisha, Jehu -- all are candidates for "The Worst Person in the Bible" award (or even "The Worst Person in the World," if existence isn't a criterion). Heck, even Jesus behaved badly as often as not.
But there are a few people in the Bible that can honestly be called good. And Vashti is one of them. Of course, whoever made up the story about her didn't see it that way, which just goes to show how messed up the Bible truly is.
The story takes place in the first chapter of Esther, where King Ahasuerus is getting ready to throw another party. This is a guy who liked to show off. He'd just finished displaying his riches in a 180-day feast.
In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him: When he shewed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even an hundred and fourscore days. Esther 1:3-4
Still, he wanted to party some more, so he invited all the men in the palace to come to a seven-day drink fest.
And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king's palace ... And they gave them drink in vessels of gold ... and royal wine in abundance. Esther 1:5-7
On the seventh day, when he was good and drunk, the king ordered Queen Vashti to put on her crown and strut her stuff before him and his drunken male guests.
On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded ... Vashti the queen ... with the crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on. Esther 1:10-11
But she refused.
But the queen Vashti refused. Esther 1:12a
Which, of course, royally pissed off his drunken highness.
Therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him. Esther 1:12b
The king asked his wise me what to do about it.
The king said to the wise men ... What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king? Esther 1:13-15
The wise men told the king that Vashti's offense wasn't just against him, but against every man in the kingdom. For if the king can't force his own wife to do whatever disgusting thing he wants, how will regular guys be able to do it?
Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people ... For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not. Esther 1:16-17
The solution, they said, was to banish (or refuse to have sex with, or imprison, or kill, or whatever) Vashti and give her crown to a woman "better [prettier] than she."
Let there go a royal commandment ... That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. Esther 1:19
So all the fair young virgins throughout the kingdom were brought before the king, and the one that "pleaseth" the king the most replaced Vashti.
Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king ... that they may gather together all the fair young virgins ... And let the maiden which pleaseth the king be queen instead of Vashti. Esther 2:2-4
And the king sent out a royal decree to everyone throughout the kingdom commanding all wives to honor and obey their husbands, "both great and small" so that "every man should bear rule in his own house."
The king's decree [that] ... all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small ... that every man should bear rule in his own house. Esther 1:20-22
That's all the Bible says about Vashti.
Not much to go on, is it? A queen who had the courage to refuse to entertain her husband's drunken guests. But can you think of another Bible character that is more worthy of "The Best Person is the Bible" award?
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/16/2011 10:30:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
8 comments:
 Intrinsic said...
Here's a little animation I did about the tale of Queen Vashti, as told by Child Evangelism Fellowship. CEF uses Vashti's banishment from the Persian king's palace as a metaphor for God's intolerance of sin in his presence.
Sat Apr 16, 01:39:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
Other then the obvious issues of chauvinism, despotism, and general b.s. I am reminded in these stories what biblical free will looks like. It paints a vivid picture of a God that requires absolute obedience. Then it says choose to obey or suffer in hell for eternity. I can't understand how perfectly rational people view this as a legitimate choice. I use the example of my teenagers; I say to them "you have a choice, be home by midnight, if you are late I will have to stone you to death". Isn't that like a threat or ultimatum? A choice would sound something like this; "if you decide to obey me you will go to the blue heaven". If you decide not to you will go to the green heaven." Queen Vashti wasn't faced with a choice, she was faced with an ultimatum. Obey or die...It is the same one Jesus gives in the gospels, "accept me as the Christ, or burn in hell for eternity".
Sun Apr 17, 02:22:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
I don't know. The case of Vashti seems more like a brief political aside to me than anything. The Hebrew word malkah is used, which is a queen consort or leading wife of a king of foreign power. She wasn't a ruling Queen, so she should have shown respect for the King seems to have been the attitude.
It sounds too much like, since the Queen was having her own banquet for the women it was more a political issue than anything else.
Even by those primitive standards the husband wasn't showing respect for the wife more than the wife not showing for the husband.
It was more of a political issue.
Sun Apr 17, 11:20:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Dan,
Hell is a pagan myth adopted by much later apostate Christianity.
Vashti didn't die because of her offense against the King she was deposed and replaced about 4 years later by Esther.
Sun Apr 17, 11:34:00 PM 2011 
 Tim said...
In all fairness to the Bible, I think this is intended as a simple historical tale, rather than a moral one. It doesn't seem to specifically praise or condemn either her actions or his, and the only real purpose of its inclusion seems to be setting the stage for Esther's appearance.
That being said, it's quite clear that this was the accepted view of the time, considering that the men's response was basically "Quick, get rid of her before the women start thinking they can make their own decisions!"
Worse, of course, is when we get to the letters of Saul of Tarsus, when this exact view is espoused as being examplary. Women are to submit to their husbands as men are to submit to their zombie saviour.
Hooray for Saul, making sure all that overt misogyny that Jesus forgot to encourage made it into Christinanity. Where would we be without him?
As for other good people in the Bible, the story that springs to mind is that of Korah and his friends performing a peaceful act of resistance in favour of a more democratic system than Moses' theocratic dictatorship (Numbers 16).
SPOILER ALERT:
God kills them.
And their families.
And their 250 followers.
The next day some people complain, so god sends a plague to kill 14700 of them.
What a guy.
Tue Apr 19, 01:19:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
Mr. "The" Pathway Machine,(I would think calling yourself something like this is taking on a huge responsibility). Thanks for your response. Even though you may be technically correct on the hell myth concept (I read your link) The vast majority of Protestant and Catholic faithful have firmly embraced it. It would be interesting to note what percentage of believers accept hell (the one where you burn forever) as a fact. 100% of the believers I have met do so. Maybe with the internet and sites like yours, word is getting out. Dan
Tue Apr 19, 03:38:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Dan, unfortunately people believe what they want to believe. A local preacher here was once informed of the pagan influenced apostate Christian doctrine of hell as unscriptural and he revealed that he was well aware of that. When asked if he taught it anyway to scare his congregation into attendance he laughed and said that he taught it because it was expected of him. If he didn't he would lose his job.
Its not only a question of the traditions of men being favored over the true teachings of God's word, the Bible, it is also a case of so called Christians putting themselves upon a false pedestal of moral superiority. Small minded people who want confirmation of the lie they live. The illusion they create.
At 2 Timothy 4:3-4 the apostle Paul forewarned of this, using the Greek word mythous (myth) later translated into the Latin (fabulas)Fables.
Examples of this are the teachings of the immortal soul from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, the cross from Constantine, hell from Dante and Milton, Easter from Astarte, and Christmas from the winter solstice celebrations.
Thu Apr 21, 10:23:00 AM 2011 
 Sarah said...
Samuel's also pretty great. The people ask him to ask God for a king, and he says, the king's going to tax you and take all your women and order you around. You don't want a king. But they persist, so like any good representative, he tells God they want a king.
Thu Jun 23, 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
    
 10 April 2011Should Christians grow the word of God by burning the Quran?
Here's what the Bible says about it:
Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. Acts 19:19-20
And here is the Brick Testament story:
  The first book burning 

The early Christians mightily grew the word of God and prevailed by burning the books of their competitors. If the Quran had of been around at the time, would they have burned it, too?
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/10/2011 07:08:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
5 comments:
 The Pathway Machine said...
Hey! Mr. Wells! How are you? Well I hope.
Uhhhh . . . the verses you give are in reference to Acts 19:19-20 which is a case of spiritism. Magick. It has to do with the influence of spiritism, which was associatied with druggery.
Now . . . we wouldn't wan't to support that, would we?
It is actually interesting in that spiritism is associated through scripture as well as the Greek, in the form of pharmakia. Drugs.
But the Quran. Well, the Quran isn't so much druggery as it is drudgery, aye?
I uh . . . I sent you this.
A response to The Sab . . .
Jude Highlights (Introduction)
http://thedaystar.webs.com/highlights/jude.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jude/intro.html
__________________________________________________________
Jude
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jude/1.html
http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/jude.html
__________________________________________________________
Do Humans Have Freewill?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/free.html
http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/humanfreewill.html
__________________________________________________________
What The Bible Says About Determinism
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/determinism.html
http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/determinism.html
__________________________________________________________
What The Bible Says About Freewill
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/free_will.html
http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/freewill.html
__________________________________________________________
Is The Devil Free To Roam?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/devil_free.html
http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/devilroam.html
__________________________________________________________
What The Bible Says About Giants
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/giants.html
http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/giants.html
__________________________________________________________
Do Angels Have Sex?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/angels_sex.html
http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/angelsex.html
__________________________________________________________
Was Enoch sixth or seventh from Adam?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/enoch7.html
http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/enoch7.html
__________________________________________________________
What was the sin of Sodom?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/sodom.html
http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/sodomsin.html
Now. I have, on The Pathway Machine, a pretty good translation of The Quran. It is, in my opinion, stupid. Burn it? No. Preserve it as you have had the sense to preserve the Bible in a sense. For the prosperity of the ill informed? Or for the prosperity of all.
Don't make that call.
Wed Apr 13, 09:21:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks, Pathway Machine. I'll try to add links to your responses to the SAB tomorrow.
As for Acts 19:19-20, it seems to me that God was pleased with that particular book burning. I see no reason why he wouldn't like others, as well. Or does he have special objection to "the curious arts?"
Wed Apr 13, 09:34:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Steve,
I would say that he does have a particular problem with the spiritual influence those books had on people. These sort of practices opened up people to the influence of demons. An interesting point of consideration is that in today's terms the amount of the materials burned would be somewhere in the ballpark of $40,000.
I would have to agree with the point you are getting at. I seriously doubt there will be any extant copies of the Quran, Dhammapada, Kojiki, Nihongi, Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, Bhagavad Gita, Analects, or even the Pirqe Aboth laying around in Paradise on Earth, but they are all available at The Pathway Machine Library.
The fact that Jehovah God would have a problem with these books in the future, as he has had in the past with books of spiritism isn't the same nor necessarily reason for Christians to burn them now.
I think there are a handful of idiot "Christians" who do it just for attention and because they are idiots.
Thu Apr 14, 06:33:00 PM 2011 
 starcrashx said...
It seems that one would only burn the Q'uran as a personal attack, as it would make plenty of people upset. Following the advice in Acts 19, it would be reasonable to burn books containing Greek and Roman mythology, too. A quick Google search of "burned mythology books" finds a total lack of this ever happening.
Not that anyone's claiming that Pastor Jones' church was trying to follow scripture, anyways. If he wanted publicity, the Q'uran was the best choice (except for perhaps the Bible, which would've been a strange choice in this case).
Sat Apr 16, 05:32:00 AM 2011 
 sellrsgold said...
It seems that you might simply burn up the Q'uran being a personalized strike, as it will make plenty of people upset. Pursuing the advice inside Acts 19, it would be affordable to lose guides containing Greek along with Roman mythology, way too. A simple Search associated with "burned mythology books" finds an overall total not enough this particular ever before occurring.

http://fashoionstyles.com/
http://warcraftever.com/
Fri Dec 02, 10:27:00 PM 2011 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.





Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 08 April 2011Read before burning
I think I've found the solution to the read or burn problem with scripture.
My first reaction was the politically and religiously correct suggestion to read it, don't burn it. And I still think that it's a good idea to read it.
But while reading, apply the newest and most ancient principle of scriptural interpretation, which is this:
Any scripture that includes verses that breed violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate.
So if you find in the scripture that you're reading verses that breed violence, hatred, or disdain, reject that scripture as illegitimate.
Of course, what you do with illegitimate scripture is your own damned business. But burning seems like a reasonable option.
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/08/2011 11:56:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
2 comments:
 Kat Martin said...
May I suggest composting as an alternative to burning?
Fri Apr 08, 07:50:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Compositing? Or burning?
I think that it is relative to the algorithms.
I have read the Bible and I have read the Quran and I have burned Bibles that were worn and torn but I never have burned the Quran.
The thing about me is that if someone tells me that I symbolicallyically set fire to either one I immediately pause to figure out why?
The political correctness of it is only at enticementticement of ignorance.
If you want to chat with the news anchors about why you want to politicallypoliticaly significant epitaph then you might as well piss off.
Politically correct in the historical context is pretty fucking myopic, even for a metal head, don't ya' think?
Burn it all. Read it all. Just don't expound on the political reference as if it merited some intellectual bullshit that put it in the fire to begin with.
http://thedaystar.webs.com/index.html.
Oh, they will surely figure it out. [Laughs]
Wed Apr 13, 09:44:00 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
    
 08 April 2011The Sovereign Lord says, "Beck will lift up my banner to the people."
Jon Stewart spent his whole show last saying goodbye to Glenn Beck. And it was worth every minute of it. It was all great, of course, but the part I liked best was his quote of Isaiah 49:22.
Here it is in the King James Version:
Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.
But that's not what he quoted from. He used the New International Version (NIV), which reads this way:
This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples; they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their shoulders.
Which, with a little erasing, became this:
...the Sovereign LORD says: "... Beck... will lift up my banner to the people...." Isaiah 49:22
I can't find a way to embed the video here, but here's a link.
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/08/2011 11:08:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
1 comment:
 James D said...
I get some nonsense about redcoats. When will the media realize the virtues of internationalization?
Sat Apr 09, 01:49:00 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
    
 06 April 2011The Best Book in the Bible (revisited again)
(Updated to include the recent Genesis - Ecclesiastes SAB revision.)
In my last post I tried to find a way to measure the goodness of the books in the "Good Book", but I wasn't completely satisfied with the results. So here's one more try. Let me know if you have any suggestions.
In the SAB, I identify the Bible's verses that contain good advice about how we should live our lives, whatever our religious views might be. For example, I think it's a good idea to try, at least as much as possible, to treat others kindly. So I include Leviticus 19:18 ("Love thy neighbor as thyself") in the "Good Stuff". Of course, not all the verses that I've marked good are as good as this verse, but I marked them good because they seemed (at least somewhat) good to me.
So take a look at the SAB's good stuff to see if you agree, at least most of the time, that the verses that I've marked good are, in fact, good. If so, then the following analysis should be reasonable for you as well.
I began my analysis by plotting the number of good things in each book of the Bible. (Of the 66 books in the Bible, there were 30 in which I could find nothing good.)
When size is taken into account, Ecclesiastes is the best (36.0 good passages/ 100 verses), with Proverbs second at 20.4. So Ecclesiastes has more good stuff (per 100 verses) than any other book in the Bible.
But what about all the bad stuff in the Bible? Shouldn't we try to find a way to rate the goodness of a book by weighing both the book's good and bad?
The simplest solution, I think, is to count up the good things in each book and subtract the bad. The result is the net good. (I totaled cruelty, injustice, intolerance, bad family values, insults to women and homosexuals to get the number of bad things, since the verses marked with these categories are all morally objectionable.)
When I did that, I found that there are only three good books in the Bible: Ecclesiastes (of course), Proverbs, and James. Three others have a zero net goodness. The other 60 books are all more bad than good.
Other goodness metrics that might be useful are the percentage of marked passages that are good and the net good number of passages per 100 verses. Since there are only three books with a positive net goodness, we can limit our analysis to these three.
Here is a table that summarizes the data.  Ecclesiastes  Proverbs  James 
Good  80  187  13 
Bad  1  75  9 
Net good  79  112  4 
verses  222  915  108 
net good/100 verses  35.6  12.2  3.7 
Percent good of (good and bad) highlighted verses  98.8  71.4  59.1 
good/bad  80  2.5  1.4 

So no matter how you look at it, Ecclesiastes is by far the best (and pretty much the only good) book in the the Bible.
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/06/2011 12:15:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
5 comments:
 MaDDoG said...
"they seemed (at least somewhat) good to me."

Soo if it didn't seem good to you, a person who completely misses the point of the Bible, then it missed the cut. So probably every story with a moral in is was left out.
Sat Jan 17, 10:50:00 PM 2009 
 Terence said...
it kills me that ppl like MaDDog, get their high horse, completely miss the sheer contradiction of the 'loving' god is closer to a psychopathic killer. Sure, lots of good ideas in the bible, love your neighbor, SAB points them all out. But the research shows, the more evidence you provide the "believers" (soon to be classified as a Mental Disorder under the DSM-IV) they just cling to their guns and bibles.
Tue Sep 22, 06:53:00 PM 2009 
 RaptorJesus said...
@ MaDDog
“Soo if it didn't seem good to you, a person who completely misses the point of the Bible, then it missed the cut. So probably every story with a moral in is was left out.”
-MaDDog
I disagree I think Mr. Wells is a person who has sane moral reasoning skills and is capable of determining good from bad, just like any other sane person. Plus the man gets intensely scrutinized for everything he put on his blog dealing with morality of the bible, so I’ll bet he checks his work twice before posting. I have read quite a bit of Mr. Wells’ website concerning the bible (I have not finished reading all of it)and I agree with his reasoning most all of the time, most all of my disagreements with his reasoning is in his interpretations of a few scriptures, but there are not very many.
He has done posts before on morality in the bible. If the bible was as clean, moral, and perfect as christians say it is then there would be nothing for Mr. Wells to post against the bible and people would find this blog to be the ramblings of a mad(crazy) man. Mr. Wells is obviously not mad (crazy) because there are immoral versus all over the place in the bible and he pointed those versus out. I think it’s safe to say he knows what he’s doing and with that said I don’t think it would be reasonable to say he has no idea what is moral.
Also I think that any person with sane moral reasoning skills could determine what would be considered good or bad in the bible. Mr. Wells said he used cruelty, injustice, intolerance, bad family values, insults to women and homosexuals to find his results. I agree and I think these are all bad things and they are found in many books in the bible. How any person who considers themselves to be "good" can find anything under these criteria that can be considered decent and moral, is very challenging and way beyond me.
Thu Apr 07, 02:07:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
In reading Ecclesiastes I noticed that the concept of hell was missing. Have you done any blogging about where that idea came from? Is there any proof to the rumor that the Catholic church came up with hell to keep the sheep in line?
Sat Apr 09, 01:54:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
awesome again !
I love the statistical posts..
Tue Apr 19, 04:20:00 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
    
 05 April 2011The Best Book in the Bible
(Re-post after revising Genesis - Ecclesiastes. I'll do it again when I get through Revelation.)
What is the best book in the Bible?
Well, that, of course, depends on how you define "best".
One way to try to determine it, though, would be to identify all the passages in the Bible that contain ideas that you consider good, and then compare the number of good passages found in each book of the Bible.
That's easy for me to do, since I have already marked as "good stuff" everything I can honestly call good in the Bible. Here are the Bible's books ranked according to the number of good passages.

So Proverbs, at 187, has the most good stuff.
But Proverbs is a fairly large book, with 31 chapters and 915 verses. How would it look if we adjusted the good stuff rankings to acount for the size of the book?
Here's the list when adjusted for size (number of good passages per 100 verses).

When we adjust for size, then, Ecclesiastes is by far the best book in the Bible (36.0 good passages / 100 verses).
(The overall average for the Bible is 1.5 good passages / 100 verses.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/05/2011 02:36:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
35 comments:
 Anthony Rasmussen said...
This is one of the more amazing things I've ever seen on the internet. Did you have criteria set for picking passages as "good"?
Sat Mar 24, 02:15:00 AM 2007 
 Roopster said...
Steve,
Thanks for putting this together. I've been focusing on a "bad" passage a day in my blog.
When I first started, I didn't think I'd make it through January then I discovered SAB and it's a great resource. Now I don't believe 1 year will be sufficient.
I'm beginning to think if I start a blog for the good stuff I may not make it through a month :)
Paul
Sat Mar 24, 07:26:00 AM 2007 
 Roopster said...
BTW, the blog I mentioned can be found at http://literalbible.blogspot.com.
Sat Mar 24, 07:29:00 AM 2007 
 AgnosticAtheist said...
I've recently acknowledged being an atheist (after years of struggling with it) and one of the primary reasons was losing faith in this book that I once viewed as the Word of God. To think that there's such a low percentage that can be considered "good."
What amazes me is all the years I read this and conveniently ignored all the other verses and just focused on this very small percentage of the Bible. How is that even possible? I consider myself an intelligent person.
aA
Sat Mar 24, 07:35:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
this is a very silly exercise! If you take a dim view of life, a view held by many ujp in yhears, the Ecclesiastes is Good; if you are in nice mood, the Sermon on the Mount is Good. Your picks, finally, reflect what you bring to the bible and not what you take from it.
Sun Mar 25, 10:07:00 AM 2007 
 space said...
Anon makes a good point. "Good" and "bad" are extemely subjective and solely dependent on a huge number of personal factors.
You've listed as "bad" most of the books outlining the history and establishment of the Jews/Israel. Why? Song of Solomon is bad??? 2 Corinthians is on the blacklist as well???? lol Why??
Is this an example of your unbiased view?
Mon Mar 26, 07:58:00 AM 2007 
 Jason Macker said...
space, have you read Song of Solomon? It is more explicit than many of the porn novels Christians attempt to ban.
In any case, I think it would be interesting to find the best book of the Bible, weighted in terms of the "bad" stuff as well. If a verse says be nice, and the next verse says stone people to death, that's not exactly going to be considered a "good" thing. So I would very much like it if we can find the book in the Bible with the highest Good:Bad ratio.
Tue Mar 27, 11:04:00 AM 2007 
 Thorne said...
LOL
I don't care that "good" and "bad" are subjective. I love this little excercise in opposites.
Have you heard about:


BLOG Against Theocracy April 6-8
Much fun for all, athiest, agnostic and spiritual alike. Check it out!
Tue Mar 27, 02:11:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Anthony Rasmussen said...
This is one of the more amazing things I've ever seen on the internet. Did you have criteria set for picking passages as "good"?
No, not really. Things that seemed good and reasonable to me, I called "good". For example, Leviticus 19:18 says, "Love thy neighbour as thyself." That seems good to me (Jesus liked it, too. -- see Luke 10:27), so I included it in the good stuff.
Killing witches, on the other hand, seems cruel and intolerant to me, so I put Exodus 22:18 in the cruel and intolerant category.
Those who think killing witches is good and loving neighbors is bad will probably disagree with the way I have classified the various verses. That's fine with me; I encourage them to make their own annotated Bible that reflects their own values.
Wed Mar 28, 07:13:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
space said...
Anon makes a good point. "Good" and "bad" are extremely subjective and solely dependent on a huge number of personal factors.
I agree. "Good" and "bad" are subjective. I read the verse and decide what to make of it. How do you do it, space?
What do you make of Jeremiah 19:9? Is it a good thing to force parents to eat their children? I don't think so, so I didn't include that verse in the good stuff. I called it cruel. Do you disagree?
You've listed as "bad" most of the books outlining the history and establishment of the Jews/Israel.
Because they don't have anything good in them. Which verses do you think I should have called good, space? Let me know, and if I agree, I'll add them to the good stuff.
Song of Solomon is bad??? Why?
The Song of Solomon is an erotic poem. It's a nice poem, but there's nothing I can point to that is particularly good -- at least as far as moral advice goes. But maybe I missed something. Let me know and I'll add them.
I think verses 8:8-10 are funny, but I wouldn't call them good. Would you, space?
2 Corinthians is on the blacklist as well???? lol Why??
Because I can't find anything good in it. Can you?
Wed Mar 28, 07:34:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason Macker said...
I think it would be interesting to find the best book of the Bible, weighted in terms of the "bad" stuff as well. If a verse says be nice, and the next verse says stone people to death, that's not exactly going to be considered a "good" thing. So I would very much like it if we can find the book in the Bible with the highest Good:Bad ratio.
That is an excellent idea, Jason. I'll give that a try and post the results at the blog.
Wed Mar 28, 08:00:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
There are no good verses in 2 Corinthians... This is precisely why it's impossible to take your study seriously and have a conversation about those 50/50 verses (e.g. Jeremiah, S of S, etc.). Your bias completely overwhelms the issue.
Which part of these verses do you find "bad":
2 Cr 1:2-3 "Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;"
Add to that verses 8-10 and 14-17 and these are only the most obvious examples in the first chapter alone.
If you're going to put this much work into a study of this nature, the least you could do is be impartial.
Thu Mar 29, 09:16:00 AM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
space said:
There are no good verses in 2 Corinthians...
What are you trying to say here, space? Is there something that you think is good in 2 Corinthians? I can't find anything, can you?
This is precisely why it's impossible to take your study seriously and have a conversation about those 50/50 verses (e.g. Jeremiah, S of S, etc.). Your bias completely overwhelms the issue.
Once again, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is there something I've marked as cruel, intolerant, etc. in Jeremiah, or sexual in S of S that you think should be marked otherwise?
For example, how should I mark this verse, space?
"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
Which part of these verses do you find "bad":
2 Cr 1:2-3 "Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;"
I didn't call 2 Corinthians 1:2-3 bad. I didn't count it as bad and it isn't marked that way in the SAB. So what is your point here?
I don't think it is good either. It's just silly. And I don't have a silly category.
It does contradict a large part of the Bible that shows that the God of the Bible is anything but "the Father of mercies." Would "the Father of mercies" say these words, for example: "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jeremiah 13:14)
Add to that verses 8-10 and 14-17 and these are only the most obvious examples in the first chapter alone.
You think these verses are good? Why? You'll have to do more than just list them, space. What do you think is good about them?
If you're going to put this much work into a study of this nature, the least you could do is be impartial.
I'm trying, space. Are you? So far you haven't given any reason why anything marked in the SAB should be marked otherwise.
And as for being impartial -- well, at least I'm trying, space. I identify both the good and the bad in the Bible. Do you acknowledge the existence of anything bad in the good book? If not, how are you impartial?
Thu Mar 29, 02:36:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
I'm confused. First you say there's "nothing good in 2 Corinthians" and then you say you didn't call it bad. If it's not good and it's not bad, what is it? Oh, it's silly. So it's not good or bad, it's "silly". According to your list then, silly must = evil. Otherwise, your numbers don't make sense.
"You'll have to do more then just list them..." lol Okay, I'll explain why my verses are good and then you can go through each verse in the books you provided and explain why you think the opposite. Fair's fair, right? :) So, let's pick one at random, shall we? Verse 10 "And he did deliver us from mortal danger. And we are confident that he will continue to deliver us." Being impartial here, is this good or bad? I'll start: It's good.
Jer. 19:9 "I will see to it that your enemies lay siege to the city until all the food is gone. Then those trapped inside will have to eat their own sons and daughters and friends. They will be driven to utter despair." What's the bad part? The Israelites were worshipping idols and burning their children in sacrifces to Baal. They were going to be punished. Who's fault is this: God or man's? This verse isn't bad and this verse isn't good. It just is.
The Father of Mercies. What's your version of mercy? Someone who refuses to punish? Someone who allows rules to be broken without consequence? That's not mercy, that's ignorance. Micah 7:18 "Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy."
Thu Mar 29, 04:43:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
space said:
I'm confused. First you say there's "nothing good in 2 Corinthians" and then you say you didn't call it bad.
It's pretty simple, space. I can't find anything good in 2 Corinthians, so it has nothing that I can call good.
I didn't call the verses that you mentioned (2 Cor.1:2-3, 8-9, and 14-17) bad. They aren't marked that way in the SAB and I didn't count them as being bad when I calcualted the good - bad and the net good / 100 verse metrics.
I do consider some verses in 2 Corinthians bad, though. Eight verses are unjust and 6 are intolerant, or so it seems to me. And since (as we all know) there is nothing good in 2 Corinthians, that means the good - bad = -14. You follow me here, space?
The net good / 100 verses is -5.45, since there is a net good - bad of -14 out of a total of 257 verses.
If it's not good and it's not bad, what is it?
Well, it could be lots of things. It could be boring, contradictory, absurd, interesting, or silly. But it might not be any of these things. Most verses in the Bible are unmarked in the SAB, because they don't seem to fit into any of the SAB's categories. At least not yet.
Oh, it's silly. So it's not good or bad, it's "silly". According to your list then, silly must = evil. Otherwise, your numbers don't make sense.
Now you're just being silly, space. I've already explained how I calculated the good - bad and net good / 100 verses. If you still don't understand, let me know and I'll try to explain it again.
Thu Mar 29, 08:20:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
I'll explain why my verses are good and then you can go through each verse in the books you provided and explain why you think the opposite. Fair's fair, right? :) So, let's pick one at random, shall we? Verse 10 "And he did deliver us from mortal danger. And we are confident that he will continue to deliver us." Being impartial here, is this good or bad? I'll start: It's good.
What was the "mortal danger" that Jesus saved us from? Was it from being tormented forever in hell by God? That's not very nice, space.
And it is also absurd. How would Jesus' death save anyone from being tortured forever in hell? God is really pissed off at us for something someone (who never existed) else supposedly did, so he is determined to torment us all forever in hell. But then Jesus comes along and God kills him instead. And that satisfies God's sadistic need to punish us. Does that really make any sense to you?
Jer. 19:9 "I will see to it that your enemies lay siege to the city until all the food is gone. Then those trapped inside will have to eat their own sons and daughters and friends. They will be driven to utter despair." What's the bad part? The Israelites were worshipping idols and burning their children in sacrifices to Baal. They were going to be punished. Who's fault is this: God or man's? This verse isn't bad and this verse isn't good. It just is.
Oh, so it's okay for God to force parents to eat their children -- at least if the parents worshipped the wrong god or something. I see what you're thinking here, space. How could I have thought that verse to be cruel, unjust, or intolerant? Silly me!
The Father of Mercies. What's your version of mercy? Someone who refuses to punish? Someone who allows rules to be broken without consequence? That's not mercy, that's ignorance. Micah 7:18 "Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy."
A merciful person is kind and forgiving. The Father of mercies wouldn't brag about forcing parents to eat their children because the parents worshipped another god.
Thu Mar 29, 08:48:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
I just read this now: "Ecclesiastes is by far the best book in the Bible..." Now that's a laugh! How many good vs. evil verses did you find in the first half of the book alone? Do you know what this book is about?
I don’t understand your math & logic for 2 Corinthians. 8 verses are unjust and 6 are intolerant. Fine. 257 total verses minus 14 “bad” verses leaves us with 243 verses of no determined label. First of all, why not mention how good it is that bad things only make up 5.5% of the book? I also find it interesting that you’ve chosen to withhold judgment on the remaining 94.6% of the book. I suppose that’s what happens when all those “bad” verses don’t jump out like they do elsewhere.
A few questions:
2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Why isn’t this a good verse?
2Cr 7:6 Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus;
Or this?
2Cr 7:13 Therefore we were comforted in your comfort: yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all.
Or this?
2Cr 7:16 I rejoice therefore that I have confidence in you in all things.
Or this?
2Cr 8:1 MOREOVER, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia:
This?
2 Cr 8:7 But as you abound in everything--in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us--see that you abound in this grace also.
Your evaluation methods are unique to say the least!! Not only are you all over the map, boring or absurd or interesting are simply personal opinion; they’re not determining factors whether a verse is good or evil. For example, here’s a boring good verse “And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac;”
So I think it’d be a great exercise if you went through every verse in the Bible and labeled it properly: “good” or “evil”. Impartially, of course. Which would mean no “boring” or “interesting” adjectives thrown in to sway the masses.
“And he did deliver us from mortal danger. And we are confident that he will continue to deliver us.” You say “What was the "mortal danger" that Jesus saved us from? Was it from being tormented forever in hell by God? That's not very nice, space.” Oh Steve, you’re such the kidder. Firstly, where are you getting tormenting in hell from…? Please Steve, by all means, enlighten us. As you’ve obviously researched this topic beforehand, I’m interested in knowing how you came to your conclusion based on the context. Secondly, “He did deliver us…” That means Steve, that Jesus delivered them from mortal danger. And that’s a good thing. See how that works? Deliver = good.
Geesh, I’d hate to see you being rescued from a burning building. “Evil firefighters, EVIL!!! STAY AWAY!!! Rescuing is BAD!!”
Jer 19:9. You sure are silly, Steve!! But I’m glad we’ve cleared this verse up!
A merciful person is kind and forgiving. The Father of mercies wouldn't brag about forcing parents to eat their children because the parents worshipped another god. Well that’s a relief because God IS kind and forgiving!! Phew! This must mean God is the Father of Mercies after all. But this thing about bragging…hmmmm…where are you getting this from? I must be missing the verse that says God brags. Would you kindly point it out to me, Steve?
Fri Mar 30, 08:55:00 PM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
Jason Macker said...
space, have you read Song of Solomon? It is more explicit than many of the porn novels Christians attempt to ban.
Its erotic (and if you take the King James version) border-line pornographic.

And second of all... just because something isn't 'bad' does NOT make it 'good'. Things can be neither, they are called 'Space'.


Oh. And another thing. How many times have Christians tried to ban movies from the shelves because they have nudity or violence?
Let's say a movie, that could probably be rated pg-13 at best hits the stores. No real major language, no major violence.
Except that the main character and his wife have passionate explicit sweaty sex for 2 minutes right in the middle of the film.
Christians would want this banned because of the sex scene right? However, using your logic of the bible that 'most of it is good [Its not, but let's go with it]' would make that a perfectly acceptable movie, no?

/Note: I've always wanted to post that.
Sun Apr 01, 07:16:00 PM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Song of Solomon is a song. It's not a movie, it's not a porn flick, it's not a sexual instruction book. It's a song. No one here has made even a half-hearted attempt at figuring out what the song is all about which only highlights the popular bias. Partiality trumps intellect. What a shame.
You're all making mountains out of molehills, which is rather ironic because this is usually the criticism atheists direct at Christians.
Mon Apr 02, 07:43:00 AM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
Um, Tiny Tim... you have no idea what you're talking about.
Song of Solomon is an erotic love poem. I guess, if you stretch REALLY hard, you could just call it a love poem that uses very explicit language.
Again, something christians would frown upon. Yet for their own bible? No so much. As usual.
Wed Apr 04, 08:19:00 PM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
What was the "mortal danger" that Jesus saved us from? Was it from being tormented forever in hell by God? That's not very nice, space.
And it is also absurd. How would Jesus' death save anyone from being tortured forever in hell? God is really pissed off at us for something someone (who never existed) else supposedly did, so he is determined to torment us all forever in hell. But then Jesus comes along and God kills him instead. And that satisfies God's sadistic need to punish us. Does that really make any sense to you?
===============



Its surely never made any sense to me! God saving us... from HIMSELF. And as we all know from the old testament, he already likes the smell of burning animal carcass... seeing himself (Jesus is God afterall) being beaten to a pulp supposedly makes him want to forgive us.
Right. Makes sense. NOT. Why the hell the guy couldn't just go 'Hey, you know, I've been a real prick for the last couple thousand years... and I'm getting really lonely... so uh... yeah... you can get into heaven now.'
Wed Apr 04, 08:23:00 PM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
1. An "erotic love poem" isn't porn. It's a poem. Do poems scare you...? Does the language in SofS frighten you?
2. Tormenting in hell. Here we go again. Jake, please explain where "tormenting in hell" is found in the context of 2 Cor 1:10. I'm really interested in seeing what you come up with. Unless you'd rather wait for someone else to give an answer first and then just copy theirs.
Thu Apr 05, 06:51:00 AM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
2. Tormenting in hell. Here we go again. Jake, please explain where "tormenting in hell" is found in the context of 2 Cor 1:10. I'm really interested in seeing what you come up with. Unless you'd rather wait for someone else to give an answer first and then just copy theirs.
========

Not surprising that I never once mentioned Corinthians nor torment in hell.
I was responding to Steve's excellent post on it, by responding with the absurbity of the Jesus story.
Sun Apr 08, 04:24:00 PM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
"It surely never made any sense to me..." Your words, right? The section you quoted has to do with being tormented in hell. Do you believe God torments people in hell or not?
Mon Apr 09, 05:56:00 AM 2007 
 BaP1803691 said...
I can't really believe this blog. Weighing the good against the bad in the Bible is pointless. The Bible is a holy book. There are two ways to look at it. Either, one, you are a Christian and you believe every inch of it as good, as the word of God. Or , you are one who is not a Christian, and does not believe in the Bible, as the divine word of God. The world is filled with people who will simply criticize. There are just people on this planet who can't be pleased. Who cannot find something solid and fulfilling to believe in, so they must bash and lower the beliefs of others. My suggestion is to let this poor man be. He has the right to hold such opinions. We must simply continue to do the Lords work.
Let us just hope that on the Day of Judgment, God shows him mercy.
Reading these comments back and forth was like watching two kids bicker. Both sides think they are right, both sides will not really consider the others opinion. There is no such thing as un-biased. Everyone should just go do something productive with their time. Perhaps think about bettering this world, bringing it together, rather then pulling it apart.
The Bible is there as a guide. It's the only connection between the sinful world around us and the glory that awaits us.
It is not a book to be criticized like its some movie or some paperback novel. Its the word of God. Plain and simple.
Mon May 26, 09:22:00 PM 2008 
 Annon. said...
i was shocked when i stumbled on this blog, playing games with God's word is a serious thing. It doesn't make you look smart the number of good or bad verses you can come up with or the witty arguments you have with people, at the end of your life none of this matters. When you are face to face with God almighty himself you will not be so bold to say all this to him that I am certain of.
It made me laugh all of the petty arguments between different bloggers and their silly remarks by those of you who have obviously not read the bible completely. I wonder if you would care to know that God considers you his child, knows the number of hairs on your head, your deepest fears, and calls you by name. God is a god of love not contradiction.
The only action I can take is to pray for the unbelievers of this blog. I hope one day you wil realize God's tremendous love for you and that you will look back at this blog and be ashamed. Until then though all I can do is pray that God will open your eyes and that someone in your life can show you the same kind of love and freedom I myself have been shown. Prayer will do far more than this silly blog will ever do anyway.
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world tht he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
This is how you begin to live believing that Jesus died to save you. I challenge you to think about it, to recognize God's love for you and I dare you to give him a chance. For those of you who are believers I cannot wait to see you in heaven.
Thu Jun 19, 07:44:00 AM 2008 
 Aquaria said...
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world tht he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
This is how you begin to live believing that Jesus died to save you. I challenge you to think about it, to recognize God's love for you and I dare you to give him a chance. For those of you who are believers I cannot wait to see you in heaven.
Sorry, but I'll challenge you that such a horrible tract is any proof of love.
1) You will perish. You have to do that to get to this supposed afterlife. That's why it's called afterlife. So the statement has a lie, right off the bat. Someone who loves you doesn't lie to you. Not about important stuff like that.
2) a )Eternal life would be horrific, simply because it would grow very tiresome, very quickly. You really haven't thought it through.
2) b) Eternal life, Christian-style, would be particularly vile. Forever praising some supposedly all-powerful deity for allowing me in his presence? Do you realize how insane that sounds? And to be doing it with a bunch of sanctimonious twits that you didn't like (and the feeling was mutual)? Please. If the Christian fantasy is true, rather than spending eternity with people like that, I'll take hell for $500, Alex, thanks. It couldn't be any less painful. Seriously.
3) Even worse, I'm supposed to be grateful to a deity who would knock up some chick with himself, be born, then he would kill the son/himself, as some kind of love offering to mere mortals.
Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. And it's sick.
I want no part of anything that insane and vicious. I don't want your heaven. I don't want your demented and twisted idea of love. You can keep it all for yourself. Seriously.
And I happen to agree that Ecclesiastes is the best book of the Hebrew Fairy Tale, since it is the least insane and therefore the most realistic.
Mon Oct 13, 12:40:00 AM 2008 
 Aeroslin said...
The author has made a great observation, I think. During my time of belief and sticking to the bible, I always gravitated towards Proverbs and Ecclesiastes as being the most helpful of the books of the whole collection. It's nice to see someone quantify the cause of my attraction to these two books.
Tue Apr 05, 04:48:00 PM 2011 
 Laura said...
Proverbs? It's like a really big box of fortune cookies. It's like the daily horoscope in the newspaper. Nothing surprising, nothing of any more than everyday commonplace experience. I'm not impressed.
Wed Apr 06, 04:15:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
I agree, Laura. Most of the "good stuff" in Proverbs isn't all that good. "Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding" (Proverbs 3:13) is true enough, I guess, but also rather obvious. Most of the other verses that I've marked good are similar truisms. Still, they sound pretty cool: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." (11:29)
Proverbs, insipid as it often is, is about as good as "The Good Book" gets (with the exception of Ecclesiastes).
Wed Apr 06, 08:27:00 AM 2011 
 Laura said...
Steve quotes, "Still, they sound pretty cool: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." (11:29)"
Yup! There's nevertheless some nifty language in the bible. This juicy verse, as you no doubt know, was taken to be the title of the movie, "Inherit the Wind". Of course it was a story, and inaccurate, but an entertaining movie nevertheless. I have a book entitled "Center of the Storm", by John Scopes, in which he talks about the 1925 event and seriously debunks a lot of popular beliefs about the "Monkey Trial".
Wed Apr 06, 12:47:00 PM 2011 
 Jon Keene said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wed Apr 17, 02:09:00 PM 2013 
 hbfiebwg ehjbkewb said...
well objective morality only comes from God. so from a Christian standpoint, nearly, if not, all of the Bible is "good". objectively good for informing us of this. but even from a skeptics standpoint like yourself? well i'm not surprised you put an average of 8 good passage from the average Gospel, only 2 good passages from the 49 pages of Jeremiah, and well, the list goes on... do you skeptics have anything better to do than right reasons for why you think we shouldn't be religious? give it a break.
Wed Apr 17, 02:17:00 PM 2013 
 soma8 said...
I would have to name Proverbs the best in the OT. Best in the NT, for me, is John, which is also probably also the "best" overall.
Mon Jul 22, 12:18:00 PM 2013 
 Zeshan Ahmad said...
According to me Quran Is the Best Book for Learning And Teaching and my request to all the worlds people right path and way just in Islam Religion
Thu Sep 19, 08:08:00 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 April 2011Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
(Repost with updated numbers and graphs on 2 April 2011.)
The LORD is a man of war. Exodus 15:3
Fight in the way of Allah. Quran 2:244
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran? Is there a way to objectively answer such a question?
Well, it wouldn't be easy. But it is possible to compare the amount of cruelty and violence in the two books.
Here is a summary of the highlighted verses in the SAB and SAQ.  Number of Cruel or Violent Passages
Bible 1214
Quran 527


So the Bible has more than twice as many cruel or violent passages as does the Quran. But the Bible is a much bigger book. How do they compare when size is taken into account?
 Violence and Cruelty Total verses Percent
Bible 1214 31173 3.89
Quran 527 6236 8.45

When expressed as a percentage of cruel or violent verses (at least as marked in the SAB/Q), the Quran has more than twice that of the Bible. (8.45 vs. 3.89%)

Of course this analysis does not consider the extent of the cruelty in the marked passages. And that is an important consideration. Is Numbers 31:14-18, for example, more cruel than Quran 5:34? That is something that each person must decide.
A good argument could be made that either book is the most violent and cruel book ever written. The award would go to one or the other, for neither has any close competitors.
It is frightening to think that more than half of the world's population believes in one or the other.

Posted by Steve Wells at 4/02/2011 10:12:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
259 comments:
1 – 200 of 259   Newer›   Newest»  Mark said...
Steve,
You seem like a really smart guy, and it seems you like to do a lot of research, which is great.
I don't agree with your findings, but can appreciate what you do if you are in fact searching for truth or answers to real questions.
It's understandable if you don't agree or like the Bible, but the basis of everything I had a chance to read here is based on a misleading way of observing, interpreting, and applying the Bible.
What you're doing is basically known as proof-texting: taking a verse out of context and applying it to a teaching or meaning that the verse(s) were never intended to support.
Do you remember the movie The Shining? It was the creepiest, scariest horror movie of the ‘70’s.
Check out this re-made movie trailer for The Shining.
What you are about to witness is movie proof-texting. A clever individual pulled out little snippets of this gruesome movie to make it look downright charming. As you view this, keep the context of the whole movie in view. And keep this in mind, if you do not keep the entire context of the Bible in mind when you go through Scripture, you end up twisting Scripture to say anything you want.
Yes, it's clever, but misleading.
Tue Jun 13, 06:25:00 PM 2006 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks for your comment, Mark.
Which do you think is more cruel and violent, the Quran or the Bible?
Tue Jun 13, 06:59:00 PM 2006 
 Mark said...
I won't comment on the Quran, since I have never read it.
Tue Jun 13, 09:25:00 PM 2006 
 Steve Wells said...
Mark said:
"I won't comment on the Quran, since I have never read it."
Fair enough. But what do you think about Surah 5:33, which says:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom."
After reading this verse in its context, does it seem cruel to you? Do you think it is cruel to cut off a person's hand?
Wed Jun 14, 02:20:00 PM 2006 
 Mark said...
Steve,
No kidding that seems like a pretty cruel act, (and unfortunately not as bad as half of what you'll read in your local newspaper today or on CNN) but a paragraph is hardly full context. I am not saying there is more to it, but to be fair, I do not know if it is advocating it's readers today to cut off hands or not.
You have gone through quite a bit of work with the SAB, and your blog, I respect that kind of diligence and commitment. Why are you so interested in these documents anyways?
Wed Jun 14, 03:14:00 PM 2006 
 Steve Wells said...
Mark said: "No kidding that seems like a pretty cruel act, (and unfortunately not as bad as half of what you'll read in your local newspaper today or on CNN) but a paragraph is hardly full context."
Yeah, I know. That's why I provided the link to the text -- so that you could read the verse in its context.
After doing that, what do you think? Is it cruel or not?
Mark said: "You have gone through quite a bit of work with the SAB, and your blog, I respect that kind of diligence and commitment. Why are you so interested in these documents anyways?"
Because more than 3 billion people believe (or pretend to believe) in one or more of these documents. These beliefs conflict with one another and are causing problems throughout the world. It's time for us to take a look at the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon to see if they are worthy of belief.
Wed Jun 14, 03:44:00 PM 2006 
 Mark said...
3 billion? How are you helping them?
As I pointed out in a previous comment, (at least in what I saw about your method of Biblical interpretation), you either lack, or avoid, contextual interpretation, and it is more than a slight misrepresentation for the way the Bible would be understood for today's reader.
Obviously that could be your whole point, but nevertheless it is misleading. To try and steer people away from what you call works that are conflicting and causing problems is noble, but rings hollow if you are misleading them nonetheless.
Wed Jun 14, 09:03:00 PM 2006 
 Steve Wells said...
"3 billion?"
Yeah, more than 3 billion, actually. 2.1 billion Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims, and 20 million or so Mormons.
But you never told me whether or not you think Surah 5:33 is cruel. If you don't want to tell me, that's fine. But I am curious.
Wed Jun 14, 09:44:00 PM 2006 
 Mark said...
Steve,
It doesn't matter if I think it is cruel or not, it isn't a document I believe in or use, so whether it gave advice on infidels or infinity, makes no difference to me.
You're obviously captivated by this document, so it makes sense for you to comment. However, if your skills of interpreting what the Quran means for readers today is anything close to your abilities to interpret the Bible, chances are you're missing it by a mile.
Fri Jun 16, 04:44:00 AM 2006 
 Steve Wells said...
"It doesn't matter if I think it is cruel or not...."
You're right, it doesn't matter.
But do you think it's cruel or not? Is anything cruel to you, Mark?
Fri Jun 16, 07:39:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
I don't really have anything to contribute to this conversation but it is nice seeing both of you, Mark and Steve, holding an intelligible conversation. The internet has resulted in me expecting terribly misuse of grammar and nonsensical comments, whenever I look at the comments box of any page. This was a refreshing change. Thanks.
Mon Jun 19, 04:36:00 AM 2006 
 A Drunken Man said...
It doesnt matter what the context of the passage is, unless it says "the following is a lie" before it. What matters is do you think it is cruel and if so, than these many cruel passages is not a good influence on people. Your using of the Shining edited trailer doesnt support your theory as it takes out only the good bits of the film to portray it as nice, however noone is denying that the film has nice bits, they are useful in the story. The bad parts are in the bible and the Quran, no doubt in many religious works. The problem is, that even if by some slim chance they are better when read completely in context with the whole bible, how many people attending churches and other religious places across the world have not read the whole of their faiths writings? Im sure the answer is many, if not most of them. That constitutes a bad influence, and its hard to dismiss this as like any other form of media as none require such adherance as matters of faith.
Cheers guys
Mon Jun 19, 07:03:00 AM 2006 
 Dennis said...
Interesting.. rather than the passages being interpreted as violence. I choose to read them as passages of guidance and justice.
I've read a few passages from the Qur'an on here. The translation's are not accurate.
I disagree with dismissing the context argument. The above poster when giving an example of 'lie' before the passage is not thinking outside the box.
Peace.. I'd recommend checking the authenticity of each verse of Qur'an.. Here is a translation of the works of Marmaduke Pickthal
Mon Jun 19, 08:08:00 AM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
Did acts of cruelty get counted if they were followed by denunciations? For example, stoning somebody is cruel, but if somebody stops it and says "stoning this person is bad," then are we reading about an act of cruelty or an act of mercy?
Mon Jun 19, 08:53:00 AM 2006 
 Steve Wells said...
"Did acts of cruelty get counted if they were followed by denunciations? For example, stoning somebody is cruel, but if somebody stops it and says "stoning this person is bad," then are we reading about an act of cruelty or an act of mercy?"
I'd consider it an act of mercy and put it in the good stuff in the Bible or Quran.
Mon Jun 19, 09:17:00 AM 2006 
 David said...
One man's justice is another man's cruel violence. I like that. :)
Of course, the real problem is the idea of "belief" or "faith" rather than the content (context or not) of the text. Since faith is belief in the absence of evidence (and often in the face of it), the real problem that is being probed in this blog is of what harm that does to humanity.
The various religious texts, Bible, Book of Mormononsense, and so on are all different flavors the samething: texts used to control. One may argue it is God who is exherting that control (though why he'd need such badly written, and unclear garbage as this to do it remains a mystery) but the more likely answer is that man did. In fact, a believer in any one of these texts is duty bound to also believe that the other books are written for such purposes as those texts could not have been truely divinely inspired as the one believed in.
Of course, the funny thing is how a believer is sucked into their faith and cannot grasp how random it is. Christian? Muslim? Jew? Depends on where you grew up, who raised you, what you were and were not exposed to, who you meet in life and so on. Giving rise, ultimately to the most absurd of statements I always hear: "I have very good reasons for what I believe."
Yeah, and so does Tom Cruise... in his mind. Hell, 9/11 was one really well organized and effective faith-based initiative. We are supposed to live in a time of reason, yet paranormal beliefs tend to rule way too many important things in our lives.
If we'd all spend a little more time over at http://www.randi.org we'd all be better for it.
-- David
Mon Jun 19, 10:22:00 AM 2006 
 Dennis said...
Of course, the funny thing is how a believer is sucked into their faith and cannot grasp how random it is. Christian? Muslim? Jew? Depends on where you grew up, who raised you, what you were and were not exposed to, who you meet in life and so on. Giving rise, ultimately to the most absurd of statements I always hear: "I have very good reasons for what I believe."
u've not met many converts to Islam then.. *chuckle
Mon Jun 19, 10:33:00 AM 2006 
 Sam from Egypt. said...
Steve as much as your article is interesting as much as it's missing content. An article just to base the facts of which one is crueler or not isn't really a comparison but how do people interpret the text and how it is followed is a more precise acuracy.
Oh btw, I am wondering why you have written this article comparing the Bible and the Quran and not mentioning the Torah? If you're going to compare the monogomous religions might as well make it a proper comparison.
Mon Jun 19, 12:12:00 PM 2006 
 Dino Nuhija said...
Honestly it matters not which of these has more violent passages, if you study them closely they are both trying to say on thing and one thing only. There is one god and you must obey him. Allah is just a translated term in Arabic for the word "god", so please do not misinterpret these as two different gods. These passages are both violent, yes I agree but the simple fact of the matter is that, that violence is to defend your belief and gods name. I personally don't understand why the muslims and christians have been fighting for such a long time.
Mon Jun 19, 03:58:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
Going back to the comment about the verse of Quraan. Surah 5:33
It says:"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land"
Is that really typical to thank or please somebody makes war against you?
But I was hoping you read critically before you comment. In this time, in these days you're a terrorist if you try to protect yourself from occupiers and attackers. It is occupation at its best. Something 15th century actually had missed a lot with all of its darkness. Thanks to government broadcasting. I don’t really know how people think in these days.
Mark: I hope you can give me your address. So I can come and take your loved ones, car, and house, if you have one, I don’t have one yet. And I may let you work for me after I take everything, don’t be hasty, I still like you, and according to your peacefulness that is fair enough. I’m really dying to see you thank me after doing all of that and leave you miserable after that. Then I will come back here and really, really thank you for your givings.
Mon Jun 19, 05:41:00 PM 2006 
 Jason Leonard said...
Mark: I hope you can give me your address. So I can come and take your loved ones, car, and house, if you have one, I don’t have one yet. And I may let you work for me after I take everything, don’t be hasty, I still like you, and according to your peacefulness that is fair enough. I’m really dying to see you thank me after doing all of that and leave you miserable after that. Then I will come back here and really, really thank you for your givings.
Actually, the Bible pretty much teaches that bad things happen to people only because they've made a choice to separate themselves from God. Or, if they are a follower of God, that they've probably got some sin to get rid of in their life...or just need to be tested to be sure they'll stick around.
And, anyone following Jesus (not religion) probably would not get miserable when all his possessions are taken away. Jesus actually commanded us to sell them all, they have little value except here on earth. Now, being humans, it might be a rare if that extreme of an example actually took place, but it sounds about like what happened to Job.
It's all about learning to be humble and be a servant...ancient near east culture understood that, the Japanese still do. It only sounds crazy to westerners who are too attached to what they have.
Mon Jun 19, 06:59:00 PM 2006 
 Jason Leonard said...
Of course, the real problem is the idea of "belief" or "faith" rather than the content (context or not) of the text. Since faith is belief in the absence of evidence (and often in the face of it), the real problem that is being probed in this blog is of what harm that does to humanity.
Biblically, "faith" is actually supposed to be based on evidence. We can't have one without the other. The word used is "pistis", which is a legal term used when referencing to trial evidence. It has the general definition of "loyalty" (or, more appropriate, FAITHfulness). You can't be loyal (faithful) to something without evidence! It's impossible! And the evidence is more than out there. Biblically, God's fulfilled promises and the things He's provided for mankind are more than enough evidence. But for the person who is still lacking that, all the evidence needed is given when someone experiences the change that He's promised (if you just believe in Him) So where is this absence of evidence anyway? I'm still looking for it. I've been to thousands of "skeptic" websites, and one thing was always clear for people claiming lack of evidence - they just don't understand what they're talking about. Not even some of the "science" that is supposedly being passed off as authoritative.
The various religious texts, Bible, Book of Mormononsense, and so on are all different flavors the samething: texts used to control. One may argue it is God who is exherting that control (though why he'd need such badly written, and unclear garbage as this to do it remains a mystery) but the more likely answer is that man did. In fact, a believer in any one of these texts is duty bound to also believe that the other books are written for such purposes as those texts could not have been truely divinely inspired as the one believed in.
So who is controlling people with these texts? I don't see anyone controlling me yet with the Bible. It's just there, it's subject to however we respond to it. Obviously you're not controlled by it. What people get "controlled" by is religion - the man-made aspect of spirituality. People who believe that just doing what they're told, or following laws, is all it's about. People who haven't understood that it's a bit something more than making a routine of things.
As for divine inspiration, this is also a concept frequently misunderstood. The idea is that the writers themselves were inspired by what they saw or heard from God, and wrote down what they could. In a few cases, God did tell them what to write, but it's usually obvious that God isn't the one actually writing things. Most of the books included in the Bible were written in the literary styles of their time period. It was obvious the authors were writing to cater to their audience - they had to put some of their own work into that. But their "inspiration" for writing was divine.
And where is the "badly written, unclear garbage"? Maybe the bulk of the madeup nonsense in the Book of Mormon, otherwise everything I've heard people say is "badly written" or "unclear", is just something that people are trying to understand with the wrong context. Historical, as well as textual context, is needed to really understand alot of the Bible. If someone abuses either, then what they read will seem "unclear" or "badly written". But in actuality, I find most of these people knew exactly what they were writing...and didn't make near the mistakes some people think they did. And when you do see something out-of-place, translators have historically mis-transcribed a dash of things here/there. Never anything that overturns the meaning and teaching of the book.
Of course, the funny thing is how a believer is sucked into their faith and cannot grasp how random it is. Christian? Muslim? Jew? Depends on where you grew up, who raised you, what you were and were not exposed to, who you meet in life and so on. Giving rise, ultimately to the most absurd of statements I always hear: "I have very good reasons for what I believe."
This is just bigotry and oversimplification of a complex concept. What about Jews for Jesus? What about Muslims who become Christian? What about Christians who become Muslim? What about Christians who become atheists? And then the ones that eventually turn back to Christians? Or what about all the Christians who leave for other "cults". Or what about the people raised wicca who convert to Christianity?
Where you grew up, who raised you, etc. - has alot to do with where your "religion" starts. But what you make of it is ultimately personal choice. As for me? Few people I met had anything to do with my conversion. It was the desire for a changed life. It just so happened that later on, I realized how much some of the people I had come across had been trying to get me there sooner. If anything your argument is more saying it's controlled, not random. My argument actually states it's a bit more random...
Yeah, and so does Tom Cruise... in his mind. Hell, 9/11 was one really well organized and effective faith-based initiative. We are supposed to live in a time of reason, yet paranormal beliefs tend to rule way too many important things in our lives.
Wow, belittling someone or their religion to downplay it's importance. So what makes Tom Cruise's belief crazy, as you have implied? I know why I don't believe in Scientology, but what is it to you if he does? Everyone does have their reasons, maybe for once you should ask what they are and listen to them? Otherwise it just sounds like you're just believing what you want without weighing any evidence.
9/11 was not a faith-based initiative. 9/11 had nothing to do with religion, save for the intended purpose of inciting a Muslim civil war and a conflict with Israel. But that was planned decades ago by the CFR. The main purpose of 9/11 was resource and localized population control. But of course I'm sure you still believe it was 19 Muslims that were responsible for pretty much controlling the military's decisions that day?
If we'd all spend a little more time over at http://www.randi.org we'd all be better for it.
Actually, perusing the site a bit, I like it! Thanks for the link! The guy tends to oversimplify many things, or just write complete dissertations on crazy topics like UFOs.
Mon Jun 19, 07:25:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
The old testament quote that you point out in Numbers was a directive from God pertaining to a particular war. Jesus has given us the dirctive for our time and that is to 'love your enimies and pray for those who dispitefuly use you'. Old testament law was an eye for a eye, but Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. So therefore all who claim to be Christians ought to adhere to the doctrines of Jesus Christ. It could be argued that the Jews who don't believe in Jesus and who have only the old Testament law could have a more extreme view if they believe that those old battle directives applied today. Do Muslims have a change in dispensation like the Christians do, or would every literal interperetation of the Q'ran lead to an extreemist view.
Mon Jun 19, 07:49:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
So, by your math, 2.7% of the Bible is evil, 0.8 % is good. What about the other 96.5%? Useless? Somehow I think your criteria for deciding these types of things was a bit off. Are all the psalms and proverbs not "good" material.
Mon Jun 19, 08:21:00 PM 2006 
 Steve Wells said...
"So, by your math, 2.7% of the Bible is evil, 0.8 % is good. What about the other 96.5%? Useless?"
Well, besides cruelty and good stuff there are another twelve categories at the SAB.
But, yeah, if I had "useless" and "boring" categories, every verse in the Bible would be highlighted.
"Are all the psalms and proverbs not 'good' material?"
I've only found three good verses in the Psalms, with 51 in "Injustice". That doesn't seem too good to me.
Proverbs is much better, though. 54 verses good verses, more than any other category. I think Proverbs is one of the best books in the Bible. (But the best by far is Ecclesiastes.)
Mon Jun 19, 09:23:00 PM 2006 
 Mark said...
Jason,
I have no idea what your comments stem from, or what your point is, but no worries matey (Matt 12:29).
Anonymous comments are weak.
Mon Jun 19, 09:27:00 PM 2006 
 Ba`alZebhubh said...
Steve,
When you count the cruel verses in the SAQ, are you counting, additionally, verses stating that non-believer's will reside in hell, etc.?
Also, I'd be interested to know the "Big" count -- i.e. how *ALL* the bad/cruel/intolerant/sexist verses count as a % vs. the good stuff in the Qur'an
Mon Jun 19, 09:56:00 PM 2006 
 A Drunken Man said...
Sam from Egypt said:
"Oh btw, I am wondering why you have written this article comparing the Bible and the Quran and not mentioning the Torah? If you're going to compare the monogomous religions might as well make it a proper comparison."
I dont think that it warrants bringing in the torah when the bible and quran reach a far larger group of people, i think its more sphere of influence that brings these texts into the light, the torah cant match them in numbers
Mon Jun 19, 11:43:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
Well depending on which book you believe in the other one is more violent because it represents a faith that is anethema to yours. And I would like to pose a question, which one is the real religion?
Tue Jun 20, 01:58:00 AM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
funny thing. someone above says he posted the context of the verse 5:33 just by posting the verses before and after.
newsflash bro...the quran is not like any other book. usually each verse has distinct history behind it. they're just placed togother.
5:34 is not necessarily related to 5:33 or 5:35.
the bible is because it's like a story book. the quran is different.
the blogger fell into this trap.
5:33 is related to a certain people. to find this context you will never find it in a quran. you may need exegesis or a quran WITH comentaries.
so i advise all to pick up the book and do their own homework.
Tue Jun 20, 07:18:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
I hope people would come to understand Islam and know what Islam really is.
I've read a few passages from the Qur'an on here. The translation's are not even close to accurate.
Wed Jun 21, 12:36:00 AM 2006 
 John K said...
And yet many of the followers of the Koran are more violent than the followers of the Bible these days.
I'd like to think that we as Christians understand the "truth" better, but I'm afraid it may be only because we, as a whole, have merely read our own book less. If the majority read more of the less "accessible" sections of the Bible, with their misunderstandings the world would be torn in twain. Yet, I fear, that may still be inevitable.
The majority is what is evil, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jew.
Tue Jul 25, 10:55:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
I think some key things are missing in this Koran vs Bible comparison...
1 - The Law that is in the Torah (which is the first five books of the OT) was law that God explictly imposed upon the Hebrews. The Hebrews were never given a mission by God to convert the world to their religion, so these violent laws were not binding on the rest of the world. So while some of these things are as violent as some Suras in the Koran the target of the violence is completely different. With the Koran it's usually everyone else on the planet who is going to get hurt, in the Torah it was just the Jews.
A lot of the New Testament letters are about why these laws didn't apply to Gentile (non-Jewish) converts to Christianity. God never intended them to be universal laws (with the exception of the basic dont kill, dont steal)
2 - The violence in the Old Testament that is not part of the Law is merely historical documentation (from its point of view) of past events. The violence is certainly not a "model" for readers to emulate.
3 - The violent commands in the Koran are intended for its readers to mete out on those who deserve it. For its readers to adhere to in their present time. The violence is PROSCRIBED not described. And this violence is directed towards those who are not members of the faith.

So perhaps you should add some subcategories to your violence labels, like "Violent "historical" event described"... "Violence directed towards adherents", "Violence command to be against non believers by beleivers" etc.
Sun Aug 06, 09:18:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
How much of the violence is merely related, and how much is actually presented as something proper? I think that this distinction is important.
Thu Aug 10, 03:31:00 PM 2006 
 CrunkChipmunk said...
How can god advocated rape, murder and slavery be taken out of context and thus be right in its proper context? It can't and its sick and its in the Bible. True believers of both Christianity and Islam are so poisoned by their belief systems they will make excuses for any atrocities committed or commanded to be committed by their supposed loving gods in their holy books. These books can be interpreted many different ways which is why there are different Islam and Christianity sects competing with eachother throughout the world and these interpretation problems are also the reasons why young children are misguided to ignore or accept some of the more cruel Bible or Koran verses by their elders and not allowed to read the books by themselves and come to their own conclusion as to read it on their own without adult interpretations and apologetics thrown in the mix for questionable verses both the Koran and Bible are absolutely sickening documents worthy of the world's revulsion not belief.
Sun Sep 03, 08:42:00 AM 2006 
 Seth said...
Interesting break-down. Of course, since "good" and "evil" are subjective concepts based on our own person upbringing and the culture we live in, it's difficult to gauge which of these scriptures has more "good" or "evil" violence.
If I kill an animal and eat it, then I gain protein and other nutrients, fur or skin to make into clothes or shelter, etc. If I kill an adversary, I can protect myself from her and maybe take her possessions, position, etc. So I could say that if there are those making war upon my god and his prophet, attempting to corrupt my land and by extension exploiting or threatening me, I would wish they were rewarded with death, or have their hands and feet cut off. At our basic core there is a primal instinct for survival. Some of us in the West do not think about it since we are protected from thoughts of survival. Our leaders and our businesses fight for us: exploiting others for their land and resources and killing those who oppose us. This way we don't have to bloody our own hands. Killing for religion is just an extent of killing for the tribe, just as killing for nationalism is an extent of killing for the tribe. It's just basic animal nature.
Mon Sep 18, 04:57:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
Is it not contradictory for some who does not believe in a diety to attempt to make commentary on books which require such belief to accept?
This aint the Constitution or a book by Carl Sagan.
What you are doing is like sending a rap critic to judge a rock album.
The first chapter and first handful of verses in the second chapter are like a disclaimer.
This is where the rap critic starts to cringe at the first loud notes of guitar and crashin cymbals. By the end of his listening session he's like...'hell nah that shit lacked a groove, the bass wasn't enough, etc,etc,etc blah blah'. So you are just like that rap critic.
So utterly and totally biased by what you believe.
What is your goal here? To defame a large group of people who will not listen to you either way? Hell, most will not hear you.
It is said we look for things in life that agree with what we already believe. So you are doing service to no one, ESPECIALLY not yourself.
Sat Sep 23, 04:20:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
I don't know if this is a continuing thread, or if it's long dead. Regardless....
As far as ALL so-called "holy scriptures" are concerned, if the supreme being of the universe had something to say to people, then certainly he shouldn't need specially trained people (clergy, "apologists" of all stripes) to interpret or translate the meaning of his words. I've read enough of the bible, particularly the Old Testament, to see quite clearly that any attempt to pretend that the violent, nasty, inhumane passages that abound there somehow turn out to be perfectly reasonable and loving and okay when "read in context" is a crock. Scriptures were supposedly written for PEOPLE, not for a special priestly class whose role it is to interpret it for the common "dummies." Are people here suggesting that God was such a befuddled thinker and even a worse writer that he was incapable of stating in clear terms - and for all ages - exactly what he meant without internal contradiction?
Sat Sep 23, 07:19:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
One other thing:
A previous "anonymous" poster stated: "Is it not contradictory for some who does not believe in a diety to attempt to make commentary on books which require such belief to accept?"
Say what? What came first, the scripture or the belief? Are you stating or implying that those who accepted the truth of the Bible and Koran many centuries ago already believed in them BEFORE they were written and disseminated? They already had to BELIEVE before they were able to accept? Then if they somehow already believed in stories and precepts that they had never been exposed to before, what was the point of writing down "God's word?" And why do missionaries proselyze and hand out copies of their scriptures to "heathens" if acceptance presupposes belief? That's absurd.
Sat Sep 23, 07:27:00 PM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
It should be noted that most of the violent sections in the bible are in the OLD testament and are generally overridden by the NEW testament in Christianity. However, in the Koran it is the opposite.
There are 114 versus in the Quran about peace and patience that are canceled by the call to Jihad and later periods in the Koran. These are in the earlier sections, where most of the nice versus about peace and patience, of the Quran and have been overridden by the later sections. This is known as nasikh (abrogation) in the Quran where versus written later in time abrogate the versus written earlier in time whenever there is a contradiction. Note that the Quroan is not arranged chronologically (time order), it is arranged from the shortest book to the longest. You need to know the time period a versus was written to determine if it is still valid or abrogated. Many Secular and moderate Muslims still quote peaceful verses despite the fact these are considered overridden via nasikh. The nasikh is not mentioned to Westerners when they read/study the Quran. For example in AD 614 Allah made one verse Surah 2:256 “There is no compulsion (i.e. coercion) in religion.” Then in AD 627 a very different one Surah 9:5 Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them…. But if they repent and accept Islam then leave their way free. The later one created in AD627 overrules the earlier one in AD614. In other words verse 2:256 is null and void. See abrogation rule in the Quran 2:106 Whatever a verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? The 9th chapter is actually the last chapter written in time, it is the only chapter that does not start with the compassionate one and it contains the verse of the sword. There are peaceful and moderate Muslims but no peaceful and moderate Islam. Many of the most radical Muslims say Islam is a religion of peace because once Islam takes over the world there will be nothing but peace.
So now if you compare the valid violent sections of the Koran vs the bible you will get a much different result. Almost all, if not all, the violent verses in the Koran remain while virtually all of the violent versus in the bible’s Old Testament are void. There are still a few violent versus in the New Testament but I believe that is less than a dozen or so (can someone count them?). Thus as a percentage the Bible’s valid violent versus drops to almost zero while the Korans remains at the previously high amount. Thus it is an inescapable conclusion is that the Koran contains significantly more valid violent verses than the bible.
Let’s apply liberal rules around the bible’s valid violent versus and assume there are 50 violent versus left. The percentage of the violent versus in the bible would drop to 0.16% (50/31173) That is less than one percent. Now divide the Koran’s figure of 5.4% by 0.16% and you get 33.77 as the ratio, in other words the Koran is over 33 more time violent than the Koran. That is a HUGE difference!!!
Thu Sep 28, 10:49:00 AM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
Correction:
in other words the Koran is over 33 more time violent than the >>BIBLE<<. That is a HUGE difference!!!

Also: There are peaceful and moderate Muslims but >>it is hard to believe in<< peaceful and moderate Islam >>>when taken literally.
Thu Sep 28, 11:25:00 AM 2006 
 Anonymous said...
Steve wrote:
Fair enough. But what do you think about Surah 5:33, which says:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land...
It didn't insist violence against innocent people. But Bible do. That is another BIG DIFFERENCE! :)
Tue Oct 10, 06:33:00 PM 2006 
 John said...
Moreover it is equally noticeable that certain verses in Qur'an repeates again and again!
The violent verses in Bible are all unique!
Tue Oct 10, 06:37:00 PM 2006 
 Joel said...
By the looks of it, you need a damn degree in order to correctly understand a passage in any religions writing. You'd think "God" would make a message more accessible, but instead people argue about which book is divinely inspired and which book isn't. In the end, it's arguing about who's shit smells the least.
Anonymous said... "Old testament law was an eye for a eye, but Jesus taught to turn the other cheek."
Here's another interpretation. Normally, a 'higher' person would slap a 'lower' person, usually with the back of the hand. To turn the other cheek would be to have the higher person slap you with the front of the hand, which was reserved for equals. Jesus was saying let him slap you as an unequal then have him slap you again as an equal, subtly insulting him.
The church has taken Jesus, a social activist, a rebel that challenged religious authorities - and it has turned him into a relic used in a ritual required by 'God' for an injust judgement of our souls. It all started with good ol Paul the pharisee..
Sat Oct 21, 02:35:00 AM 2006 
 GothNigga4Lyfe said...
It's interesting that you bring up Muslims. My husband and I compare the similarites of Islam and Christianity almost daily. If the bible's teachings,(but who's to say, as it's very contradictory - some of it to be taken literally, and some not?) don't advocate violence, why do Christians still carry it out? Are they just the ones whom are confused? Or were they just not supposed to listen to that part of the bible? Maybe they're the brave ones, whom practice literally what they believe the bible tells them? Where are the violent radical Pagans, or Buddhists?
Most Christians - most, but not all - are not content with allowing others their own beliefs. They feel they must convince/convert/preach that their way is the one and only true way. This is what led to the intolerance that I and others with differing opinions have to deal with. When I point this out, the typical response is, "Oh, they're just the radicals, the extremists. I'm fine with what you believe." Well, if all Christians were so docile and accepting, why does this discrimination continue to prevail? Why can't I be public about my beliefs, without suffering some kind of consequences? The truth is, there are very real consequences for those who are not Christians - I live it every day. The victims of the Inquisition would probably agree.
The point is, any religion which is not OK with allowing others their own thoughts, is attempting to control people, and this in turn becomes violence.
Mon Feb 05, 12:23:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
The big problem with this research is that you are equating ACTS of violence in the bible with COMMANDS to COMMIT violence in the Koran.
Violent things happened in the bible, but there are few places where standing commands can be seen for Christians to COMMIT violence.
In the Koran most of the violent quotes are of the Koran specifically commanding their followers to COMMIT violence.
As such your comparison isn't exactly fair.
Wed Feb 14, 09:15:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Firstly. Let me say that we should consider how intolerant each book is, rather than how violent it is. This must clearly be the best question when investigating how humane any religious or political ideology is. That the followers are always promised paradise, in heaven or on earth, goes without saying.
Secondly. The way a religion is practised is not only based on what is written in its scriptures, but also how rigid the interpretations of these scriptures are. Seemingly the Koran is stricter in that the followers have to believe exactly what is written.
The Koran is arguable the worst book in the first respect. But the latter is probably a much bigger problem.
Sun Feb 18, 10:18:00 AM 2007 
 Oz said...
In a discussion of violence in religion, we first have to separate individual instances and personal interpretations from the actual religion. In the case of Islam, the Koran is the ultimate AND ONLY authority. Therefore the actions of radicals cannot be attributed to violence in the religion. Followers of radical clerics (terrorists etc.) are in fact in strictly Koranic terms "idolteres" for they associate others (namely their clerics, leaders etc) with God instead of going to the source themselves. Of course they are fooled into believing this is ok as the clerics treat the Koran as a "guideline" instead of a definitive text, taking -- Just like the original article did -- verses that seemingly encourage violence and filtering out the rest.
In Islam this is the greatest form of blasphemy. The worst of the sins is to associate oneself or others with God and assume God's role in the interpretation and application of the divine Message.
The first verse of the Koran, "the Opening" explains this very well by dividing people into three categories: 1. Those God has blessed. 2. Those wrath has been directed to 3. Those who are astray. Some people lump 2 & 3 together, but I like to keep them separate as it introduces a leader/follower kind of hierarchy among the "sinners".
Radical Islamist Extremists that follow ideologies of hate fall right into groups 2 & 3. But of course so do the people on the other side of the coin who perpetuate violence and wars for oil and worldy gains and directly or indirectly spill the blood of thousands of innocents.
The Koran indeed treats this "sinner" group which it considers to be the enemy of God very cruelly. But to call it a cruel book because of this, you have to be ignoring a very cruicial element in the rest of the book that offsets this cruelty at every turn: God in the Koran, besides being all-powerful, all-knowing etc. is also all-compassionate and all-merciful. In fact these two are the most repeated properties of God. Each chapter begins with the phrase: "In the name of God, the all-compassionate, the all-merciful."
The opening verse I have mentioned also includes these adjectives and on top of which introduces the concept of divine guidance. Receiving divine guidance, followed by repentence and correcting one's actions is the path from groups 2 & 3 into what the opening verse calls "the straight path" on which the blessed walk. So these groups are not set in stone. God is not eternally vengeful against any specific person and everybody gets plenty of chances to repent and be forgiven in God's endless compassion and mercy. This involves people so wicked that we with our human mercy and compassion do not have the power to forgive.
So yes, you can focus on a specific verse against the enemies of God and call the Koran cruel if you want. But it wouldn't be the correct judgement when you also know that those who are subjected to that cruelty are also offered endless chances of repentence at a super-human level of mercy and compassion.
Outside of the Koran, the prophet Muhammed illustrated God's mercy by saying that "All of your sins are forgiven if you remove one thorn from your neighbor's path."
Now unlike many here, I don't know too much about the Bible. But I believe the true Muslim view above is very much in agreement with the true Christian view. God's mercy is embodied in Jesus in Christianity. Guilt is said to be a trick of the Devil to pull sinners deeper into self-loathing and more sin. Whereas repentence is rewarded with mercy and is achieved only by the guidance of the Lord.
Bottom-line: Neither religion is violent. Stupid people of ANY religion are.
Fri Feb 23, 01:35:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
My religion - or lack thereof - is atheism. I'm so glad that I don't need to be told how to think. I've never been incited to violence, as I personally abhor it.
Free will is so vastly underrated in this world.
Mon Feb 26, 03:47:00 PM 2007 
 Sébastien said...
The bible and the Quran were writen and modify many many many time by human with interest....
Sat Apr 07, 05:48:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
o please, dont compare christianity with islam. I know christianity can be a pain. But at least THEY DONT KILL PEOPLE in name of their religion! The pope does NOT burn or hang people, and does NOT ask for violence. Jesus was NOT a murderer. Mohammed WAS. Fatwas are always MUSLIM orders to kill someone who dared to oppose the VIOLENCE of ISLAM.
it was the inquisition who was the last christian religeous killing-team. The crusades. Herecy. Burnings to the stakes. Middel ages. Power corrupts. People who tried to live like jesus, poor, loving, unarmed, NOT VIOLENT, found a corrupt pope, with more power as kings, who was rich, un-loving, armed and VIOLENT.
we now know, that religion can NEVER be an excuse to KILL another person. We shall never tolerate a religion that incites VIOLENCE.
every scholar who reads the quran and studies the life of the prophet, will turn into a terrorist. Because that is what the prophet was. A terrorist. Because that is what the quran teaches: violence and hatred.
the core, the essence, of christianity is love. And STILL the popes killed people. The core, the essence, of islam is violence.
how would you feel if I claimed that 'kill all jews' was the word of god? or 'kill all black people'? That would be 'racist', right?
but the quran is full of texts like that, aimed at disbelievers! the prophet KILLED everyone who opposed him! dansers! poets! complete villages! he stole their woman! he fucked a nine year old child!
come on. This is clearly not a prophet. mohammed is worse as hitler and dutroux put together.
because people believe he actually IS a messenger from god.
would GOD ask you, to cut with a knife into the genitals of your child? would GOD, who created life, ask of you to KILL another living being?
islam is not a religion, it is FACISM!
the difference with christianity? NO PRIEST asks for MURDER! there are no SUICIDE nuns! the pope denounces violence, like jesus did!
christianity is bad. Islam is all that, PLUS a license to kill disbelievers, given, by ALLAH!
Mon Apr 16, 11:20:00 PM 2007 
 man said...
Steve,
Sorry about all the negative comments. You're doing good work here. That is all.
Man
Fri Apr 27, 03:04:00 PM 2007 
 Brucker said...
I think I ought to make a comment on this suspect methodology that you employ quite a bit in your blog. To be honest, it's not like I have the answer to how you could do better, but these numbers seem to me to be misleading.
If you count the number of violent passages in the Bible vs. the number of violent passages in the Quran, you're only getting part of the story. You say, I'll make it better, and make it a percent! On other posts, you've said, I'll balance out the good and the bad! But is this really reflective of reality?
The real world, even from the point of view of most fundamentalists is not black ad white. Consider a hypothetical pair of killers:
Person A is a serial killer. Out of a sense of moral outrage, he sneaks into the houses of convicted (but released) sexual offenders and injects them in their sleep with lethal doses of morphene. He's killed, let's say 20.
Person B has never committed a crime before a few months ago, at which time he abducted a child from a local playground. He took the child home and tied them up in his basement, proceeding to sexually and physically torture them on a daily basis for a few months, until he got bored and decided to kill them off by feeding them alive to his pit bull.
Is person A 20 times more violent, cruel and/or unjust than person B because he killed twenty times more people (or more, perhaps technically person B never really killed anyone with their own hands, afterall)? I don't think anyone would think that, whether or not they thought he was morally justified. (I put in the part about the victims being sexual offenders because I expect some would consider such a person a hero, although I don't want you to think I would consider him justified.)
How violent a person is is not measured in numbers of victims of acts of violence, nor numbers of individual acts of violence, nor numbers of acts of violence less acts of kindness divided by years of life. Jesus implied in the Sermon on the Mount that it is measured in an abstract way in the heart. I agree with the sentiment, and not just because I'm a Christian.
Tue Jun 05, 02:51:00 PM 2007 
 Ease said...
Folks,
Most can agree that these two texts contain violent imagery in order to convey a message. The problem with modern religion is not the text but the interpretations. Interpretations are based on one's own perception of the world and the realities that exist in their life, community, country, region, etc. You cannot fairly condemn any book or text only the literal, figurative or simply misguided interpretation and the actions brought forth as a result.
Sun Jun 24, 11:50:00 AM 2007 
 Nick said...
You need to take a look at the extent of the creulty in each book.
In the old testiment there's lots of talk about God commanding people to kill for him or God killing people. Wiked people were killed and sent to hell, it sucks but it happened.
In the new testiment Jesus comes and alows people to be forgiven of their sins by believing in him, most of the creul talk is Jesus and God's way of discribing hell (lake of fire, gnashing of teeth, ect.) in the majority of the new testiment God is a relitively nice person but at the time of death and at the time of the rapture, non believers are sent to hell and during the rapture they are almost all killed by God with a death befitting to them. Then the devil gets to take over and he tourtures everyone left for a lot of time and then God comes back kicks the devil out and makes Heaven on earth, yay.
But in the Quran there is a lot of talk about killing or maiming people in the name of Allah, these rules have not been revoke but they command all muslums to kill Christians, Jews, Hippocrites, and non-believers or they will suffer the same fate as them. It describes multiple ways of torture that muslums should inflict upon those not deemed worthy. It says Allah himself MAKES people disbaleve (thats very nice). There is no talk revoking these rules and there still in effect for muslums today. Hence why we have all these problems in the middle east with muslums killing people and themselfs for Allah. Horribly violent religion if taken as the Quran tells you to.
The basis is Bible tells you to believe in Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and you get to go to Heaven. Do good deeds, witness and help others become Christians and you get rewards in Heaven. Strict guidelines restrict any creulty being done by christians (ten commandments).
On the other hand you have the Quran which tells its followers to be relentless and mercyless to anyone who doesn't believe. It commands people to kill others for the glory of Allah. There really isn't anything nice about the way people are told to treat anyone who donesn't believe and to kill them muslums have free reign and are actually praised for being overly cruel to non believers
Quran is MUCH MUCH MUCH more cruel then the Bible, the Bible talks about cruel things most of them discribing Hell.
Thu Jul 05, 11:10:00 AM 2007 
 zack said...
First I think we should take out the promise of hell as violent. We all know it is allerogical.
In all those violent verses , the Quran is quite simple. Fight them hard if they fight you, but stop fighting them if they stop fighting you (them can be anybody). I dont see this as violent, but for self defence against your enemies.
As for worldly punishment, The Quran always gives the limits. The minimum and maximum. Example as for Surah 5:33, which says:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom."
Well, it doesnt look that bad relatively in those days for a crime for treason. During world war2 it was death. The Quran gives 3 options at least. Maybe banishment for the lighter offence and death for the severe ones.
As for the bible, it is the only holy book that include the killing of innocent women and children, etc.
In conclusion, I would say that the Bible is more violent than the Quran. Not by the number of violent words, but the violence itself. In fact The Bible is the most violent of all Holy Books.
Thank You
Fri Aug 10, 04:52:00 PM 2007 
 zack said...
Please note that I was comparing the Bible and the Quran, not muslims or christians.
Thank You
Fri Aug 10, 05:09:00 PM 2007 
 Spike Spiegel said...
People,
Any good christian or muslim, in fact any human being KNOWS it's wrong to be violent, cruel or to take anyone's life.
The people we see or hear about, that kill in name of God/Allah are downright fanatics, brainwashed and ignorant. In my eyes I do not consider them muslims, christians, jews or whatever.
@ Nick: Please do read some more of those books. Reading improves your spelling and removes all the bullshit the bogey man has planted in your head. It might also help to spend time with people from the two religions and watching a little less TV.
PS: I'd recomend anyone to visit any of the three blogs i write on, but they're in portuguese, so...
Tue Sep 04, 03:04:00 AM 2007 
 rigidsporty said...
Interesting work and worth reading. I would have to agree that most followers of these religions have not read the works in full context, so each side, the believers and non believers are talking and not listening. These documents were written long ago and they survived transcriptions, translations, and even editing to some extent. The fact that a semi coherent document exists is a marvel of mankind. Skeptical fanatics and religious fanatics alike can mold these documents however they see fit and make their own plausible intellectual discussions for eternity. The truth of the matter is that a person of sound mind and reasonable intellect can produce positive thought from reading these texts in context and in their entirety. Skeptics with and without interest can play with their own short sightedness and fanatics can play with gullible masses. The rest will spend more time reading the texts and less time watching an intellectual volley. When I was a child I used to correct my fathers English. He would ask me if I was listening to how he said it or what he is saying. Don't be a child.
Tue Sep 25, 04:42:00 PM 2007 
 laijorad said...
Listen man, Only God knows your true intentions,What are you trying to prove,More violent the Quran or the Bible.They both have violent verses so,What's new,That's very normal since they are from the same God.Or are you another radical pacifism Christian.God is no violent,His only love.Comforting your self with this fantasy.And by the way You don't know how to count. The Bibles you mentioned are just translations of different versions,Stop doing that, Stop Questioning God.Thats what you doing these are the words of God,Prove there not and your free to your opinion,But when it comes to your God then it's blasphemy.Man shame on you.You are playing with fire.
Tue Dec 25, 02:52:00 PM 2007 
 laijorad said...
Come on people use your heads.In the Quran the first verse that gave permission to the Muslim to fight,be careful permission not command,They were asking God for it. [2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors. [2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers. [2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. [2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors. [5:87] O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.
[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
[4:90] ... if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.
[4:94] O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.
[6:151] Say, "Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty - we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."
[17:33] You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped.
[25:68] They never implore beside GOD any other god, nor do they kill anyone - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. Nor do they commit adultery. Those who commit these offenses will have to pay.
No Compulsion in Religion
[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.
Absolute Freedom of Religion
[18:29] Proclaim: "This is the truth from your Lord," then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve. We have prepared for the transgressors a fire that will completely surround them. When they scream for help, they will be given a liquid like concentrated acid that scalds the faces. What a miserable drink! What a miserable destiny!
How to Spread God's Message
[16:125] You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.
[8:12-13] Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: "I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger." This is what they have justly incurred by fighting GOD and His messenger. For those who fight against GOD and His messenger, GOD's retribution is severe.
[9:4-5] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous. Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. ...
[9:13-14] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place? Are you afraid of them? GOD is the One you are supposed to fear, if you are believers. You shall fight them, for GOD will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.
The verse you quote it is not for the unbelievers,It's for any Muslim that does corruption,It's a law.
Tue Dec 25, 04:03:00 PM 2007 
 GypsyRose said...
I for one appreciate SAB, and the side blogs as well. I find that it is very thorough in its research and picking apart things...In short its one of the best online concordances I have ever seen and doesn't leave anything out just because someone thinks that part is just a sidebar...
I also like that there is now also Koran and Book of Mormon. I would love to see him do a few other religious documents as well...
Fri Jan 04, 06:27:00 PM 2008 
 nnn said...
bible has rich history of thousands of years....yes also killings(i'm not naive- it was in ancient times through the cradle of civilization in mesopotamia to the greek and roman era)
while islam in few years exterminated entire civilizations ,their people language ,and culture
Tue Apr 29, 04:12:00 AM 2008 
 Travis said...
The Bible and Koran are just words. It's the followers that carry out the violence. Which religion has done more violence? That is the question we should be asking and we all know the answer to.
Tue May 27, 10:07:00 PM 2008 
 Travis said...
Your list of "violent" bible passage are akin to reading the phone book and finding names that sound dirty. You have to consider three things: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!
Tue May 27, 10:13:00 PM 2008 
 Sharon said...
I have read both the BIBLE and the QURAN / KORAN. The violence in the two is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT.
The bible's violent passages are mostly in the telling of a story. Cain kills Abel, David slays Goliath. THEY ARE OVERWHELMINGLY STORIES OF HUMANS HARMING OTHER HUMANS. There isn't a general feeling of G*d condoning or ORDERING his followers to commit violence upon each other when you look at the overall book.
On the other hand, the passages in the Koran are often ORDERS FROM G*D TO HIS FOLLOWERS. They are clear cut, concise COMMANDMENTS TO KILL, SLAY, BURN, and/or DISMEMBER the unbelievers (non-Muslims) or those whom you percieve to have wronged and/or threaten you. This is ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT from the Bible, it is in TOTAL OPPOSITION TO IT, especially the NEW TESTAMENT with it's overall message of turning the other cheek, of forgiving, of live-and-love-and-LET-live-and-love...
For a covering of some interesting Koran quotes visit my blog at wingless.aoriginality.com
Fri May 30, 05:41:00 PM 2008 
 Blogman said...
I have been reading the articles on your website and the comments.. i must say to the writer that he deffinately takes things out of context! Your quotes are also incorrect:
Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. (7)
This is the exact quote from a surah in the quran, if u read it like that you think that Allah has sealed the eyes on all non believers however the context is actually that Allah has sealed the eyes of the children of Israel!
They were favouritised and the most guided people however they chose to wonder astray regardless and so Allah has given the word that their eyes are sealed and they will see an awful doom.. which makes sense.
If Islam had nothing to do with what id called punishment not cruelty then it would all be good!!! why would one obey if regardless you will be rewarded? People use logic to try and defy religon however never try and use logic to explain religon.
Sun Jun 01, 10:32:00 AM 2008 
 Hannah said...
I have been reading new testament. It is filled with "Love" from God.
I recently started seriously reading Old Testament, in particular, Samuel I, II. I am shocked by the violences in these books. That is why I
Googled to find out anythings in this regards. There it is, some pretty interesting blogs here.
The 'cruelty' in the old testament is the interpretations of God treatments or rather punishment to the Israel's 'misfortunes' or rather 'arrogances'. Israel people along the Arab people suffered in common from 'hatred' between each other for thousands of years. Therefore their God seems to be merciless when these people in fact do not follow God's commands.
Don't forget Bible's New Testament, God's true revelations of His Goodness and Mercies. God through His son, Jesus Christ, loves all of us who all fall short in His glory.
We are no different in terms of our true sinful nature. There is no differences in a criminal and a president in terms of our nature. Though yet, God loves us through Christ, our Lord ! That is the ultimate love.
Wed Jun 04, 10:40:00 AM 2008 
 Boniface.'. said...
"What you're doing is basically known as proof-texting: taking a verse out of context and applying it to a teaching or meaning that the verse(s) were never intended to support."
You mean like every minister in every church that's ever existed?
Fri Jun 06, 01:35:00 PM 2008 
 stuslaptop said...
If any God exists there is know way that it would condone the killing of non believers, all of you blind people should go grab a gun or some other weapon and go kill each other until we are left with the people that actually want peace on Earth with out the racial hatred and violence that is incited by religion.
It’s all a simple case of my “God is bigger than your God” and if you disagree then you will burn in hell, this all sounds to me like the work of the Devil as commonly described to all of us.
The day religion dies is the day that humans evolve stop making weapons to protect a fake faith that totally contradicts everything that is truly Godly, if God does exist then the religions are just Chinese whispers of the same story spread around the world and translated into many languages and I know for a fact that no God would condone the killing, burning, harming of any kind of any living thing be it setenant or not.
The reason you believe in this bullshit is that you clearly have something missing in your sad lives.
I guess you all believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and dragons, all of which have no evidence of existence just like your fake Gods, these lies are there to control you idiots into following paths of violence 911 ring a bell?.
Despite what you may think of my opinion the world would be a much more humane place if so many people did not believe in this shit.
I also assume that you self centred, selfish individuals believe in alien’s right?
And if not why not?
Peace to all creatures that exist in the entire universe is what my God would promote, you would not burn in hell for not believing, being gay / lesbian as after all God made them gay at the end of the day and like it or not the facts remain that religion is a way to make the rich richer the poor die of AIDS in Africa all because the pope told them that contraception is evil, condone that your God thinks that is ok and you are the evil ones.
I can not prove if God exists or not I have an open mind unlike you religious zealots with your closed minds and if you had your way the whole world would be slaves to your demons.
Religion is like a Utopia in that if everyone followed the same rules and worshiped the same God peace may be possible, but all the time that religions live in a time of the past promoting violence to the non-believer and condemning them to burn in hell all I see is evil nothing good, nothing peaceful just a bunch of morons that clearly think their God is bigger and better than my God and if you do not believe me then die.
What a crock of horse shit, if any thing I type here offends any of you religious nut cases then I say good, because what you have done to the world in the present and the past offends me so much that it makes me almost hate humanity for being so foolish to believe is such nonsense.
Tue Jun 17, 08:41:00 PM 2008 
 Sharon said...
blogman said:
Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. (7)
This is the exact quote from a surah in the quran,
--------------- --------------- ---------------
HEY GENIUS, YOU JUST FOUND ANOTHER TRANSLATION! There are several... Some are very liberal in their translations (i.e. they say 'moved' or 'slayed' instead of 'killed', they say 'subdued' instead of 'humiliated'...
So do not assume the author misquoted...

--------------- --------------- ---------------
blogman said
if u read it like that you think that Allah has sealed the eyes on all non believers however the context is actually that Allah has sealed the eyes of the children of Israel!
--------------- --------------- ---------------
OH! THAT MAKES IT ALL BETTER... YOU EXPLAINED IT, I'M GOING TO SLEEP NOW FEELING ALL WARM AND FUZZY! End of delusion.
Are you saying it's ok because he only smote the JEWS?!
Heck, the Islamists would agree as that targets their favorite scapegoat (funny how that is, the #2 religion in the world (Islam), the religion involved in most wars going on in the world today (Islam!!!) are blaming all the world's woes on a religion whose numbers are so small that they do not make it to the top 10 by population (Judaism))
--------------- --------------- ---------------
blog man said:
They were favouritised and the most guided people however they chose to wonder astray regardless and so Allah has given the word that their eyes are sealed and they will see an awful doom.. which makes sense.
--------------- --------------- ---------------
Thanx, you are just echoing the original authors point that the Koran is manifesto for a holy war again non-Muslims. You assetion that it is "not against everyone" but JUST the Jews is (a) absolutely false (read the Koran, come down to wingless.aoriginality.com and see the posts on the Sura), (b) absolutely devoid of morality
--------------- --------------- ---------------
If Islam had nothing to do with what id called punishment not cruelty then it would all be good!!! why would one obey if regardless you will be rewarded? People use logic to try and defy religon however never try and use logic to explain religon.
--------------- --------------- ---------------
That is NOT NOT NOT the point. Do you not understand? The Jews & Christians & Buddists & Hindus & Jains & Bahais & Satanists DO NOT WANT TO FOLLOW ISLAM! Again, they have no interest or need for Islam... The Koran calls upon Muslims to KILL these people! There are multiple passages that call for the FOLLOWS to smite the non-believers. It does not say that G*d will punish them, it does not say they will be punished by an unseen force, it calls upon humans to kill other humans. That is unique in Islam, to Koran often reads like a manifesto to violence against non-Muslims. see sources
Sun Jul 06, 12:23:00 AM 2008 
 sitbaddoggy said...
I'm gonna borrow from Pat Condell here:
I respect a Christian, I don't respect Christianity.
I respect a Muslim, I don't respect Islam.
I respect a Jew, i don't respect Judaism.
In other words, I respect the person as a human being but I couldn't give a hoot about whatever sky deity they believe in. Followers of these Abrahamic faiths use their holy books as a blueprint for daily life, which includes binding laws as well.
So if god tells you that unbelievers were punished both here and in the hereafter in all sorts of nasty ways, do you need any context to justify it? God says he did it or condones it, so it must be true. Otherwise it wouldn't be the word of god in the first place.
If you end up cherry picking verses based on context, as that context changes through time you'll find even less verses to choose from until there are none left. In the end you might as well put the Bible/Quran on the same shelf as the Greek myths and Gilgamesh.
(do correct me about where the top quote came from)
Mon Nov 24, 11:40:00 PM 2008 
 C Woods said...
I’m sure everyone has heard someone say, “I believe what I see,” but actually the reverse is true: we see what we believe. If one believes the Bible is full of inspiration, one will see and believe those passages that support that belief and ignore the rest. Instead of finding the Bible beautiful and uplifting, I found much of it rather appalling. Thus, reading the Bible was one of the triggers that started my doubts.
As George Bernard Shaw said: “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.”
According to Mark Twain: [The Bible] “is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.” (Letters From the Earth)
You can find more on why I am an atheist at my blog:
http://tirelesswing.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-i-am-atheist-blame-it-on-bible-part.html
Sat Feb 28, 01:45:00 AM 2009 
 C Woods said...
In response to o Anonymous who posted MON APR 16, 11:20:00 PM 2007 who said: "o please, dont compare christianity with islam. I know christianity can be a pain. But at least THEY DONT KILL PEOPLE in name of their religion!... "
Has Anonymous never heard of the Inquisition? or the Salem witch trials? Did Christians not kill each other in the name of their religions in Northern Ireland? Have Christians not killed homosexuals or abortion doctors because they were sinners? I'm not saying every Christian does this, but some do, and they do it in the name of God and/or Jesus.
The tragedy of 9/11 is a perfect example of Muslim zealotry gone bad. But then most Christians conveniently forget that Christians killed every man, woman, and child in Maarat and Jerusalem ---at least 50,000 people--- during the First Crusade. They killed everyone: Muslim, Jew, Christian, man, woman, and child ---and even ate the bodies of those they had slain, all in the name of Christ.
There were nine Crusades in the Middle East and numerous others elsewhere. Although the main targets were Muslims, Crusaders also targeted pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, and political enemies of the popes, among others.
Most of us have no idea if our own ancestors were involved in The Crusades, but the Muslims know. They meet in coffee houses where the entertainment is the relating of the history of families for generations back to the Crusades as if it all happened yesterday. This is why Muslims were so horrified when George W. Bush used the word “Crusade” in remarks about his War on Terrorism.
(Read more: http://tirelesswing.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-i-am-atheist-part-3.html)
And then there are those good Christians who write hate letters to atheists. (Read some examples of the "lovely, kind, heartwarming" letters received by the Freedom From Religion Foundation from "compassionate" Christians: http://tirelesswing.blogspot.com/2009/02/christians-behaving-badly-6.html)
Sat Feb 28, 02:20:00 AM 2009 
 John O said...
Steve,
Your blog and annotated texts are magnificent and enlightening.
The weaselly evasion that bad verses are out of context is rubbish. Frequently, you describe the entire surrounding story, and often that makes the violence and injustice even more remarkable.
Just curious: you've calculated violence as a percentage of both books. Would it be possible to divide the books into percentages for your categories (violence, injustice, contradictions, cruelty, good stuff) summing to 100%, or is there too much overlap between categories, or is 60% of them filler and pointless narrative and begats?
Thanks again for your great work.
John
Tue Mar 03, 08:54:00 PM 2009 
 Parker said...
As I read through the comments above, I was impressed by the respectful tone taken by everyone on every side of the discussion.
The content, however, left me less impressed. The Muslim defends the Koran without question, the Christian fully supports the bible and the Atheist claims both are 100% wrong. No wonder religion lies at the heart of so many of the world's conflicts.
Fri Apr 24, 06:59:00 AM 2009 
 Ben said...
Hi Steve (and the Internet...),
The concept of abrogation and the distinction between descriptive/past-tense violence and instructive/future-tense violence does seem important. Further, I often wonder about the "wiggle room" afforded by each tradition... because the Qur'an was written down by companions of the Prophet and because one version was agreed upon so quickly after his death, I think Islam is much more inclined to literal interpretations. But the point made earlier that distinctions like "good" and "evil" are relative is valid... from the perspective of Muslims they are simply defending themselves and all that is holy I guess (and honoring contracts, treating orphans kindly etc. are "good" ideas), and it was (almost?) all said somewhere in the OT/NT... too bad for women, homosexuals, non-believers, people who charge interest, etc...
At this point I'm rambling though... thanks very much for the work you're doing!
Oh, one last thing: I'm a Master's student studying Criminology at SFU, and my thesis is an analysis of online Canadian conservative discourse regarding "Islamic Terrorism," which is why I ended up at your wonderful blog. I have access to NVivo 8 (Qualitative analysis software, super handy for coding/content analysis) and if you ever wanted to collaborate on developing a code-sheet to dis-aggregate/further analyze the violence etc. in the Bible/Qur'an I would love to help. You've probably already done something like that actually, so I'll go poke around some more and see.
Cheerio,
Tue May 19, 11:42:00 AM 2009 
 Angel Rai said...
Yeah. who cares, right? Even the Devil doesn't believe he's evil ... LOL and so are his children ... ask the Crusaders ... the Jihadists ... the ones who plotted the Inquisition during the dark ages---and they'll all tell you, they're doing all these FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD. And like the fanatical MARK, everyone who doesn't see things the way he does are being misled and deceived. Very typical of anyone whose closeminded.
Thu May 21, 10:25:00 AM 2009 
 sky22d said...
Short-sleeved polo ralph lauren is the father of the summer should be prepared to most commonly used item, it has both style and shape of lacoste polo shirts, and vest with a random function, so that in the short-sleeved burberry polos apply to both on many occasions, and the pink and black cheappolos color brought into effect. polo fashion integrates two types of luxury and leisure style, now more and more popular men’s polo logo, most designers have sought to perfect the cut with “cutting” polo shirts in vogue of bones of the body polo women clothing.
Fri May 22, 01:36:00 AM 2009 
 Slaylem said...
Jason Leonard, I'm calling shenanigans! You can't just spout some long-winded diatribe about how "evidence of christ's glory is everyhere and people who claim there is none just don't know what they're talking about!" and not site the evidence that claim is readily available. Faith does not equal evidence, dude. Just because you grew up in a situation that lead to your devout belief in an invisible man that lives in the sky doesn't mean everyone who didn't is gonna fry. Christianity isn't even the mostly widely believed in religion! So god is gonna fry all those folks all over the world who lead perfectly decent lives doing good by others and helping each other out but didn't have the benefit of being born in a christian household? Pretty much, right? Then there's that part of your blathering that I barely made it through about how the authors of the "good book" took certain liberties and wrote the books in the literary styles of the time and gave it their own flare so now we're supposed to interpret the meaning for ourselves. So who's responsibility is it to come up with an accurate interpretation? That guy on TV with the expensive suit telling me that Christ REALLY needs my credit card to build this awesome church with huge vaulted ceilings and multiple commercial-sized tax-free electricity-sucking air conditioners to house his worshippers on Sundays? Or maybe I should come up with the interpretation on my own. Look within my own soul, right? Maybe I see how commonly people get stoned for stupid stuff like eating shellfish or being gay or coveting the neighbors in the bible and decide that must be something I should practice in my own life and start chucking rocks at people that I feel aren't up to par with Christ's teachings.
I must also disagree with you about how no one is trying to control anyone with religion. How about all the Christian churches that rally support for the republican party? How about the push for religion in schools? It's so well established throughout history that religion has been used to control the masses that if I really have to site specific examples, the point is lost on you anyway. Hell, the point was lost on you long ago. Save it for the Sheeple in your Sunday service.
Tue Jul 21, 08:25:00 PM 2009 
 PeaceByJesus said...
The issue of the violence goes beyond what percentage it consist of in of in each respective authority, and much include interpretive factors.
In the the Old Testament, in which ordained violence was limited to a specific area and people, (Dt. 7:1; Ex. 17:16) and was preceded and accompanied by unmistakable supernatural Divine attestation, and under the [New Testament the church did not, in doctrine or in practice, seek to physically rule over those without: (1Cor. 5:12,13), nor use physical violence against them, or in disciplining its members, (Jn. 18:36; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 10:3,4) as it must depend upon spiritual power.
In contrast, Muahhamad's exhortations to bloodshed know no dispensational boundaries, while his more moderate expressions occur in his pre-Medenic utterances, and as pointed out, such make up a more substantial part of the Qur'an.
In addition, the relatively brevity of the Qur'an (approx. 77,700 Arabic words according to one source versus 788,280 in the KJV, or
O.T.= 602,585; N.T. = 180,552 by another), and its lack of the manner of extensive historical narratives of the Bible, and other means of the context it provides for understanding its laws, renders the Qur'an more difficult to interpret, including physical rel. violence. At best it may restrict exhortations to physical violence to only defensive warfare, while at worse it offers support to an Osama Bin Laden type exegesis.
Moreover, the Qur'anic allusions to Biblical characters and events overall evidence that it depends upon the Bible. Muhammad himself is seen to uphold the Scriptures that existed then as Divinely inspired, both the Torah, (Sura 2:87) and the Psalms, (4:163) and the gospels, (Suras 3:3; 5:46; 68; 29:46).
However, the Qur'an critically contradicts the Bible, especially as concerns the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is likely due to Muhammad not being able read, as Islam states, and thus he would have relied upon the word of others (travelers, etc.) who were overall likely to be significantly Biblically illiterate. This would explain how Muhammad could be so confused as to believe such things as that the Christian Trinity consisted of God, Jesus and Mary,[(Sura 5:116-117) in addition to speaking numerous other contradictions. http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/#bible http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html
Islamic apologists recognize these contradictions, and charge that the Bible was tampered with, though the amount of alterations required to explain the Quranic deviations from Biblical text would require a radical amount of rewriting of the latter. However, no extant Biblical manuscript, from before the time of Muhammad or after him, agrees with the Quranic contradictions, though they conflate with the Bible today. Many Muslim apologists thus look to the Gospel of Barnabas for support, with its additional obvious anachronisms and historical errors (like sailing to Nazareth), it is believed by both Christian and secular scholars (and some Muslims such as Abbas el-Akkad) though any ancient manuscript evidence, with its additional obvious anachronisms and historical errors (like sailing to Nazareth), it is believed by both Christian and secular scholars (and some Muslims such as Abbas el-Akkad) to be a circa 14th century pseudepigraphical work.
Wed Aug 12, 03:43:00 PM 2009 
 marry said...
Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!
_____________________________
Dissertation Samples
Thu Aug 27, 05:39:00 PM 2009 
 Abdul Haq said...
PeaceByJesus...that reminds me of a joke. Several colonialists are taken prisoner by a primitive African tribe. Because the colonialists unknowingly trample a sacred site belonging to the tribe, the chief is called on to issue a punishment. He asks the first prisoner whether he prefers death or whether he prefers jeebus. The first prisoner says jeebus. So he is taken away to be given his punishment. The second prisoner approaches and and he is asked whether he prefers death or jeebus. The second prisoner says jeebus and he is taken away to be given his punishment. By this time the first prisoner can be heard screaming in agony from a distance. The third prisoner asks the interpreter "What is jeebus?" The interpreter says jeebus is the punishment by which you are fukked by a bull. The second prisoner approaches the chief and is asked the same question. He answers "death." The chief reflects on this for a moment and then he says, "Death by jeebus!"
Furthermore, you are full of shit. "In contrast, Muahhamad's exhortations to bloodshed know no dispensational boundaries." This statement is verifiably false if you only bothered to read all these passages in their context. For example, "And slay them wherever ye catch them" (2:191).
In context, the passage reads: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."
The Koran is actually quite even-handed in its treatment of the "enemy." Although, militant Islamic movements completely ignore Muhammad's proscriptions against bloodlust and egregious acts of violence, including the proscription against killing innocents, those who are not fighting you.
So, please go spew your misinformation on Jihad Watch. This site is not for the likes of you.
Cool site by the way. I have a lot to say on this subject and you may hear from me directly as I am planning my own blog on a related subject.
Fri Oct 02, 02:12:00 PM 2009 
 Marcelo said...
"What you're doing is basically known as proof-texting: taking a verse out of context and applying it to a teaching or meaning that the verse(s) were never intended to support."
Mark, that't actually what priests do. They try to hide the crazy stuff on the Bible and only talk about how God is good and loving.
Christians should know that God kills, torture, and orders others to kill and rape. It's written on the Holy Book.
Tue Oct 06, 12:28:00 PM 2009 
 Martin said...
"Muahhamad's exhortations to bloodshed know no dispensational boundaries"
abdul haq, you may ridicule that statement, but it's probably true. i once read in my collection of hadiths bukhari that muhammad ordered the killing of an old woman for insulting him ( or blind, or old and blind, i forgot, i havent read it in a long time ) . many others are also murdered, some of which are of no threat to him. many of muhammad actions are actually unprovoked, the attacks on wealthy merchants for example. he robbed them plain and simple. he also massacred entire tribes, unprovoked.
i dont think he's a nice guy
i wish people would just be peace-loving atheists. this religion thing is making people unproductive and spend time thinking and doing stupid things.
Thu Oct 15, 10:32:00 AM 2009 
 Dennis said...
Of course the Qur'an is a lot more violent than the Bible. Interestingly almost all of the violence described of in the Bible do not apply to Christians. They only applied to ancient Israel. While the Qur'an wants to be followed by all Muslims. Regardless of what era they live in.
You be the judge. Which religion spread through convincing and which spread through the sword? Christianity or Islam? Which one actually tells its adherents to go and kill? Islam does. Christianity always denies converting people by force. There have been a few people who have done that but they were mostly Catholics. Catholics are wrong anyway. We are actually talking about the Holy Books here. The Bible has its violent share. The reason for that is the immense sin of the Canaanites. God needed the Israelite nation to carry out his judgment. Not because he couldn't do it. He could do it but he wanted to see the faith of his people.
Wed Nov 04, 09:35:00 PM 2009 
 Abdul Haq said...
Dennis - Of course, the reason why the New Testament is not as violent is because it is a slave religion, born of a slave class of people living under Roman oppression. Jesus and his cohorts had no chance against the Romans, so peace was the only way to go. It's nothing mystical or special about the New Testament. It's all human, all too human.
Moreover, Protestants may have the most peaceful religion but they are by far the most violent people. WWI, WWII, and just about every major war since then has been fought by mostly Christians. The current wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan have killed more than half a million people, a good percentage of them innocent. So, to argue that Christians are somehow more peaceful that Muslims is just plain bullshit.
Thu Nov 05, 12:06:00 PM 2009 
 Chris said...
To those who have no particular 'faith', reading comments like these leaves us wondering what are these people on? We judge you based on what you do, not on what you say or say you believe. I give not tuppence whether you are Christian, Muslim, or some small furry creature from Apha Centauri, but I do care about how you treat your fellow man. Trying to justify any inhumanity by quoting your religious texts merely increases the disgust. As a Scholar, I know that I can manipulate almost any text to serve my purpose, and know that it is merely words, words, words. The sadness is that together, you have the ability to create a better world for everyone, yet you seem to choose not to.
The truth that you know in your heart and your head, that you need to treat others as you would wish to be treated, is ignored. We are all human. We laugh, we cry, we hurt, we die. As the great English playwright wrote "We are such stuff as dreams are made of, and our little lives are rounded with a sleep". What a piece of work is Man indeed. Have we learned nothing? Peace is achieved through tolerance. Regardless of what you believe, you have a choice. How you use that choice defines you and what you are, and thus you are judged.
If you say that your God will ensure your salvation if you are brutal, then I say shame on you and shame on him. You have nothing to offer mankind. Tell your God that he must reject such inhumanity and challange him to justify such commands. If he is a fair and just God, he will acknowledge that right and understand that your devotion is genuine and reverential. If not, then he is merely a God of pain and suffering with bankrupt morality who does not deserve to be honoured.
Peace and goodwill to ALL men.
Fri Jan 01, 01:50:00 PM 2010 
 Jared said...
The Shining example is perfect for the Bible, only talk about good things in Church. Like the movie clip and ignore the rest.
Tue Jan 05, 07:09:00 PM 2010 
 Global said...
"So, to argue that Christians are somehow more peaceful that Muslims is just plain bullshit."
Agree!
Both books are written by governments justifying mass land grabs thru genocide by "villifying" inhabitants of the land and resources they want under the guise of being "chosen people" because they have a bigger invisible friend (so they can deny accountably for their atrocities.
Thu Feb 11, 06:49:00 PM 2010 
 Opus Croakus said...
I am a fan of SAB and encourage you to keep up the good work and "fight the good fight" to qoute our less friendly counterparts.
I came up with an experiment after hearing many of my "peers" cite the violence in Islam in contrast with the percieved peace in Christianity. I think every one should do the experiment. I haven't tried it yet, but here's a link:
http://thecowardlyatheist.blogspot.com/2009/09/bible-or-quran.html
if anyone gives it a go, please let me know about it! I feel the problem is not what's in these books, but rather what their adherents don't seem to know what's in them.
Because of religious folks,I have no hope for humanity as we are all plainly mammals trying so desperately to convince ourselves otherwise.
Mon Feb 15, 01:00:00 AM 2010 
 sharing said...
Both Islamic and Christian follower and priest don't understand that both religions are not founded by god it is made by a single human that why these religions have the basic human error .objective of both religions might be positive or progressive at that time but these are out of date now because both religion have no method to correcting the error.that is the main reason both are related to forceful conversion or conversion by making fool or by offering bribe.It is as simple as eating cookies to understand that god is not unfair or biased , for him it doesn't matter whether a person is a muslim ,christian,or hindu. A person is the son of him and he is responsible for his survivals.and he is doing his duty without any mistake . but either we fight on the name of him,or killed others on the name of so called jihad or convert forcefully or by cheating or by offering bribe.
Tue Feb 23, 07:34:00 AM 2010 
 SD said...
Also we must remember the "violence" of the Old Testament is DESCRIPTIVE.
The hatred and violence in the qur'an is PRESCRIPTIVE.
That is a huge difference most people don't take into consideration.
Also the qur'an has what is known as abrogation which, in context, resulted after Muhammad was being made fun of for saying one thing and then saying something opposite later. Abrogation means to cancel out conflicting verses, such as the earlier peaceful verses.
Sura 2:106 of the qur'an deals with abrogation.
The later violent verses, cancel out the earlier peaceful verses.
Sura 9 was written last [some Islamic scholars will argue it was Sura 9 then Sura 110, but it makes no difference as 110 does not abrogate anything in Sura 9].
Sura 9 contains the prescriptions to slay non-muslims on an indefinite basis [9:5, 9:29].
Fri Mar 12, 10:23:00 PM 2010 
 Chouru said...
Let me pose a few points.
I've heard many "Christians" say stupid silly things like "This is the devil" or "That is the devil"... such as: ooooh magic. Witchcraft. Remember Salem?
Did not God create ALL things? Does the Devil have the power to CREATE ANYTHING? From what I understand, God created all things, and the Devil does not have the power to create anything.
Therefore, if these things that exist in our world were created by God, how can they be "the devil"?
If miracles of God are real, then how is magic not real? If prophets during an older age were seen as true messengers, then why, in modern times, are people labeled as mentally insane when they "see God" or "hear God"? Are they not then, the same people who "wrote" the books in the bible?! Can they be considered prophets?
Another point is this:
Numbers 31:14-18, as Steve Wells has mentioned before. I'm sorry, but killing ANY innocent man, woman, child, animal, or whatever is just plain cruel. I don't care what "context" it is in!
There is absolutely no justification for killing any innocent person. Throughout the Bible, such as when Joshua massacres seven kingdoms, there are numerous accounts of genocide in which innocent people are killed. In those times, an army did not slaughter everyone they conquered. If they didn't assimilate them, they enslaved them.
This means two things to me, either:
A. The Israelites and their "God" were just plain vicious, cruel barbarians
or
B. What actually happened was they did try to assimilate or enslave the people they conquered, and what was written down, that they massacred everyone, was false.
I'm not aiming to offend anyone here, but these are my personal observations. This just makes no sense at all, I don't care what "context" you are in, but the slaying of innocents is wrong! The judgments of worldly things created by God as "the devil" is just hypocritical.
These are rather specific examples. All in all what I'm trying to say is:
These religious texts make no sense at all. The "context" of violence, cruelty, rape, or any other atrocity can NEVER justify the act. Stop basing your faith on an ancient book that exalts characters who are basically criminals! Lot was not righteous. He lied (saying his two daughters were virgins, when a few passages later they have husbands), willingly gave his daughters up to a mob of rapists, then got drunk and impregnated those same daughters. I'm surprised the whole family didn't have some sort of genetic mutation caused by incest, or HIV/AIDS. Oh that's right, God must not have "created" those yet, like the Guinea Worms he created just to kill whining Israelites.
Use your damn BRAIN!
Sat Mar 13, 12:07:00 AM 2010 
 Chouru said...
One thing I noticed was the Quran is full of similar or exact passages, such as:
Those who disbelieve in the Hereafter will be tormented. 34:8
Those who disbelieve will have an awful doom. 35:7
Allah will burn the disbelievers in hell. 36:63-4
Those who disbelieve will burn in the Fire. 38:27
*took these from "Cruelty in the Quran" page*
Shouldn't these not count as new entries, since they are essentially the same thing? I found very few of this in the Bible; just retelling of the flood or sodomites.
If there are so many accounts in the Quran that are virtually the same saying, then those accounts should really be pooled and counted as just one passage.
It would be interesting to see if the Quran still has a higher percentage of violent passages than the Bible, after something like this was done. Of course, to be fair, one would have to do the same for the Bible.
What do you think?
Sun Mar 14, 09:07:00 PM 2010 
 GurtejArora said...
It doesn't matter what how much violence is in the books, it's how much violence has been caused over the books.
In my opinion, the Bible has led to more violence than any other religion. It's been used to justify the raping of cultures and peoples. Yes, the Qur'an has also led to violence, but not on the same scale as the Bible. I am a Sikh, and the Mughal(muslims) Empire savagely tried to put down my people for years, and we fought back. We were created as a warriors religion, and yet I still believe the Bible has led to more violence.
Yes, Islam does have misguided followers, who believe that killing is the answer, but that is a small minority.
Alright, lets look at modern times. A very small minority of muslims, in a group of 1.6 billion, agree with the Al Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#2008_.26_2009_Surveys_and_Polls
There are less than 1000 members of Al-Qaeda, which was a number in 2001. Outdated, I know, but thats all I have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda
The KKK, a white-christian anti-semite group in the U.S. has approximately 5000 members. At one point in the early-mid 1900's, it had 3-6 million.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk
I know what you're saying. "Wikipedia? Really?", but I checked out the sources. They seem legit.
Sun Apr 25, 10:19:00 AM 2010 
 Fat Bastard said...
Nicely done.
Which is more cruel, the OT or the NT?
Sat May 29, 01:27:00 PM 2010 
 דודשמש יםךא ךםהד עםג said...
So your whole claim here is that you are kinder than God.
And wiser and better.
Create a universe! And..then write your blogs condemning God.
Go on...go create a universe just by speaking it into existence. Then write a blog on it and condemn God.
Until then I cannot see you as anything but a dreamer.
Wed Jul 07, 08:02:00 PM 2010 
 Nancy Thompson said...
Excellent blog post and very thought provoking comments.
Sat Aug 07, 01:06:00 AM 2010 
 The Holy Quran said...
Along history,moslem never doing crucifying, even over people attacking Islam. So did the prophet. Moslem soldiers just fighted against them, not torturement, like Indian people fight against Colonialist. Naturally, people will defend from their attacker.
The fact, Jews had done that over Jesus.Serbian soldier genocide moslem bosnian.So, who is more violent???
By reading Quran a piece of piece, you never got the true meaning of Quran.
Surah 5:33 tells the punishment of God, not by human. And there is no doubt that God has a right to do that (of course if you believe of God). Every religion have the same believe that in the Hell, people suffer from The God Punishment.
Just read comprehensively Quran with The Multi Language Holy Quran : http://www.ziddu.com/download/11162756/TheMultiLanguageHolyQuran.exe.html
Wed Aug 11, 12:14:00 AM 2010 
 Besur 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" said Prof Weinberg. I am glad there are about a billion atheists...
Wed Aug 18, 01:10:00 PM 2010 
 Risto said...
"But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
As I think it there is no need for religion. Common and vulgar greed is quite enough for good people to do evil things - and to find very good excuses for doing them.
Tue Aug 31, 07:53:00 AM 2010 
 gabriel said...
It's not every day you run across a blog that has carried on for 4 years and retains the relevance that this one has and always will. I am nowhere near an expert on the Koran nor will I ever be. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the bible either but you don't have to be to be a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. His teachings were simple and so is the single most important message in the Bible. Through our belief in Him and our acceptance of him as our savior we are saved and granted eternal life.
Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, forgive those who sin against us and to love and pray for our enemy. Hate groups such as the KKK do not represent any of the teachings of Jesus and wouldn't be able to find anything that Jesus taught us to justify their actions.
There was a posting that also insinuated that Christian missionaries are somehow violent and their mission is to indoctrinate others to force them to believe as they do. This simply isn't the case. The sole purpose of a true missionary is to lead people to Jesus Christ. You can't force someone to accept Christ as their savior. That's a personal decision that every person has to make on their own. Mission trips are done by showing love to strangers as Jesus taught us to do. Why wouldn't we want to spread the good news? There is an almighty creator and he loves you. So much in fact that he sent his own son to die for you. That is the message of the bible. It's about mercy and love. If all you're picking up on is the violence then you're missing the point.
Tue Sep 07, 03:36:00 PM 2010 
 Charlene said...
A key point missed in pointing out that violent acts are seen on CNN is that those violent acts are not condoned, whereas they are condoned, and encouraged in religious teachings.
Fri Sep 10, 07:52:00 AM 2010 
 Chuck R said...
Steve,
Ever since I read the Koran maybe 15 years ago, I've wondered how many times the phrase "lake of fire" is used. After a while, it's perpetual use got to me. Do you have a count on that?
Sat Sep 11, 12:13:00 PM 2010 
 Steve Wells said...
Chuck R,
I'm not sure about the phrase "lake of fire." It doesn't seem to be used in Pickthall's translation. But "the fire" occurs at least 140 times.
Sat Sep 11, 12:48:00 PM 2010 
 Chuck R said...
Steve,
Thanks for the incredibly fast response. The version I read was "The Meaning of the Glorious Koran" by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, Mentor/New American Library paperback, 15th printing. No date given.
After receiving your answer, I went back and thumbed thru it for a while. Then googled a bunch of sites including http://quran.com/ for the phrase "lake of fire" and sure enough, it doesn't appear. "The Fire", says that site, appears 157 times.
So this appears to be a case of memory shifting over time. "The Fire" became "lake of fire". It's very annoying when one's sense of certainty becomes transparently wrong.
Thanks for the correction, Steve.
Sat Sep 11, 01:49:00 PM 2010 
 Steve Wells said...
You're welcome, Chuck R.
BTW, the Bible mentions a lake of fire four times, all in Revelation (19:20; 20:10, 14, 15).
Sat Sep 11, 02:30:00 PM 2010 
 hasan said...
you can not judge a religion by it's radicals.
and in response to
Sharon said...
I have read both the BIBLE and the QURAN / KORAN. The violence in the two is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT.
The bible's violent passages are mostly in the telling of a story. Cain kills Abel, David slays Goliath. THEY ARE OVERWHELMINGLY STORIES OF HUMANS HARMING OTHER HUMANS. There isn't a general feeling of G*d condoning or ORDERING his followers to commit violence upon each other when you look at the overall book.
On the other hand, the passages in the Koran are often ORDERS FROM G*D TO HIS FOLLOWERS. They are clear cut, concise COMMANDMENTS TO KILL, SLAY, BURN, and/or DISMEMBER the unbelievers (non-Muslims) or those whom you percieve to have wronged and/or threaten you. This is ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT from the Bible, it is in TOTAL OPPOSITION TO IT, especially the NEW TESTAMENT with it's overall message of turning the other cheek, of forgiving, of live-and-love-and-LET-live-and-love...
It is forbiden in Islam to slay a person unless an act of self-defense, or in war.
Islam forbids the slaying of the elderly, women, and children.
Sun Sep 26, 06:29:00 PM 2010 
 guineap1g said...
"It's about mercy and love. If all you're picking up on is the violence then you're missing the point."
Can you say that in Arabic?
An excellent article showing the violence inherent in both texts. Which is worse is irrelevant to the fact of the violence itself.
As has been mentioned, it is the "mercy and love" aspect that seems to be "picked up on" by most faithful who then ignore or blithely hand-wave away the naughty bits.
This often involves treating the Bible as two completely separate books rather than the two volumes of one it is. IIRC, the first volume is based on the Torah, no?
The happy 'The Shining' trailer is a good example of this behaviour - pulling out little snippets of these gruesome books to make them appear downright charming.
Take Deut. 28 - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/28.html
In a comment on Big Think, someone had listed a pile of nasty passages from the Bible including Deut. 28:53:
"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee"
It was suggested I read the whole chapter because it's aboot what could happen to you if you become destitute.
If you read it, I think you'll see the above interpretation is rather broad since the chapter appears to be a primer on how to worship God - or else. One of the else's is being besieged by armies sent by God until you have to eat your children. Three quarters of the 68 verses are devoted to God botching the unbelievers.
Too literal an interpretation? That's what it says in semi-plain English. Why should I have to interpret what for centuries, and still to many today, is the word of the Creator of the Universe?
The Words of the Lord speak for themselves. Any interpretation is spin-doctoring because the interpreter wasn't around back then to know the authors and what they were thinking.
Wed Oct 06, 05:22:00 AM 2010 
 Fatman said...
Nice comparison, although I liked the Complete Table of Divine Homicide better :)
As seen above, however, this will not help asshats like "Mark" and a collection of illiterate individuals recognize the truth. They will continue to sip the Kool-Aid and utter empty statements like "yes, but you took it out of context" ad nauseam. He will write "misleading interpretation" and "proof-texting" (a new favourite of blind Bible-thumping idiots), without bothering to elaborate further. How could he? Close your eyes and mumble "it's not true" until it goes away - I think that's something that Christians and Muslims learn in Sunday school (is that Friday school in Islam? I wonder).
Your accurate analysis in fact proves the complete opposite - the Bible is full of examples of divine violence. The abundance of such references in this long and utterly boring text in fact PROVES that they have NOT been taken out of context. This entire long, boring text was created with the sole purpose of striking fear into the hearts of primitive folks.
The history of Christianity supports my claim 100%: this maniacal ideology has been responsible for countless violent deaths over the ages and the disappearance of entire civilizations. It has held the progress of the human race back by centuries (anyone heard of the Dark Ages?). There is no need to elaborate this further, much as one does not need to explain why the brain-child of Adolf Hitler was a "bad thing".
To another asshat who even used CAPS LOCK to underline his error: "proscribed" is not the word you're looking for... "prescribed" might be a better option. Your choice in fact means the opposite of "prescribed". But you don't know this, as the only book you have read is the Quran/Bible.
Another blog I'll be following with interest, good job and keep it up!
Mon Oct 11, 12:04:00 PM 2010 
 nothing said...
Many good points, here. But it all strikes me as an "angels dancing on heads of pins" exercise. Humans have evolved to require justification for killing those who are not members of the same tribe/religion/nation-state--part of having become a species that survives as much by social ties as by muscles or even technological know-how. What better way to justify eternal war than to state that a violent religion whose adherents are mandated by their sacred book to kill non-believers is an enemy of peace and tolerance? And justification--by which I mean rationalization--is all it ever can be, because humans are going to be killing one another more and more, as resources grow more scarce on this planet.
I appreciate what Steve appears to be trying to do, but you could cut the crap and you'd still get the same counter-argument from the well meaning people in both camps. The belligerent ones will never respond favourably to reason, regardless.
Mon Oct 18, 03:19:00 PM 2010 
 sharing said...
both are very violent the history of murder, rape, loot, destryig cities killing communities, are attached with both . and both preache intolrency and rigidity humanity does not need any of those
Mon Oct 18, 10:12:00 PM 2010 
 thirdworldcounty said...
A quantitative analysis of violent passages Bible Vs Koran is simply silly. If you want to take thye two and compare them, you must do so theologically and historically.
In the Bible, for example, the New Testament injunctions by Jesus, often beginning with "But I say unto you... " are generally followed by injunctions that abrogate the earlier, often violent, "Old Testament" commandments.
When asked to sum up the Law, Jesus, for example, Said,
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, Love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27)
WHen npressed for a definition of "neighbor" by his legal questioners, thinking to limit its use to literal neighbors, fellow Jews, Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan... who helped the mugged Jew on the road to Jericho.
Mohamed, on the other hand, never once defined "newighbor" so loosely. In fact, his later, Medinan, pronouncements abrogated ALL of his early "peaceful" Meccan pronouncements and stated clearly that ANYONE who did not submit to his view of religion and politics was an enemy to ALL Muslims and under a sentence of death, only to be deferred if the unbeliever submitted to Islam ic rule or the Muslim confronting the unbeliever were unable to advance Islam through the submission or death of the unbeliever.
It's all there is black letter Islamic law in the Koran.
Thus, anyone, at any time, who tries to justify mas murder, rape, pillage, torture and worse by claiming to do it in the name of Jesus is a liar, and pointing to the record of such liars as doing such things in the name of Christianity does nothing to bolster an arguer's case..
Conversely, anyone--ANYONE--who appeals to the words and deeds of Mohamed as justification for acts of mass murder, rape, pillage, torture and worse can do so quite legitimately. Pointing to a consistent pattern of abuse of persons throughout history by Muslims is simply noting that such abuse simply follows the specific injunctions and acts of its founder and final arbiter of truth, within Islam's worldview.
The contrast could not be more stark.
Fri Nov 19, 11:17:00 AM 2010 
 Richard said...
All three books (Koran, Talmud, Bible) are the idiotic, often barbaric, babble of irrational, illiterate, shepherds & goatherds from places in the Mid-East. Both books have been copied by hand for centuries, with small and large additions or subtractions made, depending on the goals of the scribe. It is ALL worthless trash except, unfortunately, as a means to explain a lot of really stupid human actions —from Halal to Fish on Fridays, circumcision (for both sexes) & particularly wars, torture.
More trivially, it also explains why academics dress like priests for graduation day, and judges do so. To impress the minions with appearances rather than content.
A pox on the lot.
Sun Jan 09, 11:34:00 AM 2011 
 Quranreading said...
Well Every book sent by GOD on His Beloved Prophets have message of love, freedom and peace in it . that's might be certain that Bible is not in it's original form it is changed by people of different ages to make their life more easier.
Quran is the last book sent by God on his last prophet to force the spread the truth.
Mon Mar 28, 02:13:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Quranreading,
Every book sent by GOD on His Beloved Prophets have message of love, freedom and peace in it.
Yeah, "And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:14-18
And "Those who make war upon Allah and His messenger .... will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." Quran 5:33
Are both filled with lots of "love, freedom and peace."
But the question I asked in this post was, and still is, this:
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Do you have an answer for that question, Quranreading?
Mon Mar 28, 10:15:00 AM 2011 
 Dan said...
Fantastic work Steve. Absolutely fantastic.
Fri Apr 01, 01:17:00 PM 2011 
 sharing said...
It is a useleass debate "Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?"
in fact all religeons are made by human. god did not send any angel or messanger to spread his so called light of knowledge.
it was an effective method to spread own view and to force the peoples to follow it. because these books are mainly consisted the ideology of one person. these books might be written by different peoples but the ideology behind the books belong to a single person. thats why it says to follow the guidelines strictly. and the punish ment which was suggested for non believers is the common thing between these books. It is the clearcut indication of its manmade tendency. because god cannot be cruel for its creation.so as per my view both books increased unharmony and enimity amongst the mankind.if christians believed in converting non believers into christianity, muslim believs to kill non believers. it is a unique similarity of nontolrence amongs the follower of these books. histoty witnessed the long crusade between them.the foolowers of both books destroyed the culture art and religeon which they invaded.so both books are equally violent in nature.
Fri Apr 01, 10:13:00 PM 2011 
 Markus Arelius said...
You gotta love the the excuses on display here today. It's all a huge misunderstanding, because Steve is extracting the wrong passages, taking the verses out of their "true context", oh, and the translations? They're wrong.
It's the 21st century and we have millions of persons praying to god and organizing their lives around these repulsive, misogynistic, capricious and violent texts, so I'm not surprised to read comments of persons glossing over and sugar coating these things. These are the same dolts who agree with the the 2nd and 7th century dogma that a young girl with an unbroken hymen should be stoned to death.
These texts are infallible.
I commend Steve for just telling it like it is. The excuses are really entertaining stuff.
Sat Apr 02, 10:48:00 PM 2011 
 Sarah said...
In the spirit of the pure essence of religion - kindness and love...
An amazing man spreading the faith in an unconventional way throughout New York City!
http://newyorkknowsbest.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/if-you-need-me-call-me-no-matter-where-you-are-no-matter-how-far/
This cab driver is a Pastor!
A great read!!!
Mon Apr 04, 06:31:00 AM 2011 
 DMartyr said...
I'm coming to the conversation a bit late, but I just wanted to comment about the exchange between Mark and Steve. Both make interesting points and it's refreshing to see commenters actually debating, rather than exchanging pointless rambling, diversions, or even childish insults.
I have been in many discussions with those who support and/or defend the quran, and I notice 'context' or translation accuracies only seem relevant with violent passages. Rarely, if ever, is context questioned with regard to apparently 'peaceful' or good verses.
For example, verse 5:32 - see that particular verse constantly being quoted to show a good quality of the quran. The verse:
"...Whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land."
Unless one is familiar with the verse and the context, it sounds like good advice to follow. However, this verse is not for muslims to follow. It is addressing Jews.
Not only that, but many who use this verse to illustrate the quran's peacefulness gloss over that all important "unless it be... for mischief".
The penalty for 'mischief' is prescribed in the next verse, 5:33, which is quoted above in comments. 'Mischief' is defined in other places in the quran. Spreading disbelief (proselytizing other religions or criticizing islam) is considered 'mischief' (16:88). Again in verse 8:73 is disbelief defined as mischief. Verse 5:64 says that Jews are guilty of mischief for questioning allah.
So, in the context of verse 5:32, 5:33, and the quran's own definitions of 'mischief', I ask 'Mark' (if he's still around), and any others who care to comment, is it excessively cruel to crucify or amputate the limbs of someone simply for proselytizing or questioning islam?
Plus, one must understand the concept of abrogation. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament, not really abrogates, but the violence described in the Old Testament is essentially ended with the New Testament, which guides followers to a new direction of peace.
The quran, on the other hand, specifically addresses abrogation:
"Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it." (verse 2:106)
In other words, if two quran verses seem to conflict with each other, the newer verse prevails.
So, in judging violence in the quran and the bible, I believe a better and more accurate comparison could be made if DIU compared the New Testament with the verses in the quran produced during muhammad's (later) Medina period.
Anyway, excellent post followed by excellent comments.
:)
Wed Apr 06, 07:08:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
I believe a better and more accurate comparison could be made if DIU compared the New Testament with the verses in the quran produced during muhammad's (later) Medina period.
Thanks for the suggestion, DMartyr. That sounds like a great idea. I'll look into it.
Wed Apr 06, 06:43:00 PM 2011 
 a@sd said...
we muslim belive on torah , bible also
and our book quran say to belive on these books, but quran have all the knowledge which bible and torah , the evidence is
quran tell about jesus (mercy of god on him) mary (mercy of god on her) even about moses(mercy of god on him)
and these all are prophets of god to guide us,even you christan dont think that bible was reveal on jesus in jerushlam while quran was reveal in arab so how it tell about all prophets (jesus ,adam,moses etc!!)
today a special group (called them self Muslims) make violent in the world which basically a creation of jews .we have common enemy and they are "JEWS". they wnt to kill jesus (mercy of god on him)
Wed Apr 20, 01:13:00 AM 2011 
 John Smith said...
this is the original article that you distorted.
Sun Apr 24, 10:01:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
a@sd said...
we muslim belive on torah , bible also
and our book quran say to belive on these books, but quran have all the knowledge which bible and torah , the evidence is
quran tell about jesus (mercy of god on him) mary (mercy of god on her) even about moses(mercy of god on him)
and these all are prophets of god to guide us,even you christan dont think that bible was reveal on jesus in jerushlam while quran was reveal in arab so how it tell about all prophets (jesus ,adam,moses etc!!)
today a special group (called them self Muslims) make violent in the world which basically a creation of jews .we have common enemy and they are "JEWS". they wnt to kill jesus (mercy of god on him)
So if this is all the evidence for all the knowledge you claim to have, chill out… Go snorkeling and then sit under a palm tree and contemplate how fantastic life on this planet is. More then likely neither jesus (mercy of god on him) mary (mercy of god on her) even about moses(mercy of god on him) ever existed so you have no reason to hate Jews. That’s why living as a non-theist is so much easier- there is no one to hate and no one to blow yourself up over!
Mon Apr 25, 05:30:00 PM 2011 
 farzkhan351 said...
This is hilarious...So, all the violent verses in the Bible have to be understood in its proper context, and all the violent verses in the Quran are in the context of how the reader interprets it? Or how the media wants to interpret it? Or how the Islam-haters want to interpret it. Is that your way of fairness?
Sun Jun 12, 07:18:00 PM 2011 
 agyragobogar said...
"taken out of the context" is always a nice excuse when it comes to Bible verses that are not the "nice ones".
Here is a good example of this
http://youtu.be/PK7P7uZFf5o
Sun Jul 03, 12:03:00 PM 2011 
 archangelodiluce said...
It frustrates me to no end when uninformed Westerners draw comparisons between the Bible and the Koran to make some relativist claim about the values underlying the respective religions. When they do so, they reveal the limitations of their own perspectives, and a complete lack of appreciation for the meaning of Islam.
One cannot understand the Koran without reading the Hadiths and the Siyar. One can't appreciate Islam without studying its implementation through shari'a. Consistency in understanding Allah's will through Mohamed's example has been accomplished during 1300 years of religious decrees and a millennium worth of extensive analysis by Islamic jurists. With few exceptions in the majority Sunni world, the four schools of Madh'hab are in nearly universal agreement on the primary points of Islam. Fire-breathing clerics who daily exhort the Umma to emulate the prophet and conquer or slay the kuffar know Islam inside and out, run innumerable madrassas in which they train the faithful, and hold positions of authority at Al Azhar.
The Bible is not like the Koran, and the Koran is not the Islamic equivalent of the Bible. Believing that they are roughly equal for religious foundational purposes is a grave error regularly made by Westerners trying to bridge cultural gaps while burdened with overwhelming self-doubt.
I will not enter this argument because although it is important to understand why it is meaningless, it is itself a useless exercise. I've read every post on here and only a few demonstrate that their authors have taken the necessary steps toward toward cultural and literary enlightenment. As the source material is eminently available, I commend the rest of you to do the same.
Mon Jul 25, 08:18:00 PM 2011 
 archangelodiluce said...
It frustrates me to no end when uninformed Westerners draw comparisons between the Bible and the Koran to make some relativist claim about the values underlying the respective religions. When they do so, they reveal the limitations of their own perspectives, and a complete lack of appreciation for the meaning of Islam.
One cannot understand the Koran without reading the Hadiths and the Siyar. One can't appreciate Islam without studying its implementation through shari'a. Consistency in understanding Allah's will through Mohamed's example has been accomplished during 1300 years of religious decrees and a millennium worth of extensive analysis by Islamic jurists. With few exceptions in the majority Sunni world, the four schools of Madh'hab are in nearly universal agreement on the primary points of Islam. Fire-breathing clerics who daily exhort the Umma to emulate the prophet and conquer or slay the kuffar know Islam inside and out, run innumerable madrassas in which they train the faithful, and hold positions of authority at Al Azhar.
The Bible is not like the Koran, and the Koran is not the Islamic equivalent of the Bible. Believing that they are roughly equal for religious foundational purposes is a grave error regularly made by Westerners trying to bridge cultural gaps while burdened with overwhelming self-doubt.
With proper understanding, one realizes that this discussion is a useless exercise that ultimately only benefits the disciples of Hassan al-Banna. I've read every post on here and only a few demonstrate that their authors have taken the necessary steps toward toward cultural and literary enlightenment. As the source material is eminently available, I commend the rest of you to do the same.
Mon Jul 25, 08:25:00 PM 2011 
 Chuck R said...
Archangelodiluce,
1) Complaints about Christians' attitudes towards Islam should be posted elsewhere. Most of the people reading this blog are not religious. Christianity holds no more value to Atheists than does Islam, said value being next to nothing. Both are fairy tales invented by either delusional or well-meaning but ignorant people, and only children or childish people could believe them. The same, by the way, goes for Judaism, Hinduism, and the other organized and still-operating but archaic systems of mythology.
2). If one must read the Hadith & the Siyar, study shari'a and be fairly familiar with 1300 years of Islamic history in order to understand the Koran, then it wasn't written very well, was it? An intelligent 8-year old child - a mere mortal - could do better. Can't Allah express and explain "him"-self properly? We are mere mortals: why do we have to aid Allah with ancillary writings? Is "he" incapable of speaking clearly? If Allah needs all this help from humans to be understood, he's a bit of a bumbling fool, isn't he?
3). The koran may not be like or equivalent to the bible in any way, but that does not make it superior in any way, except to people who value one style of fairy-tale telling over another style. Both are works of fiction.
4). Self-doubt would do you a world of good. You express certainty and confidence where none is warranted, deserved nor earned. I have seen people leap to disaster with similar, utterly unwarranted, self-confidence.
5). You already entered this argument by making your posting. When one speaks and says, "I am not speaking," he both speaks and is in error.
Tue Jul 26, 10:52:00 AM 2011 
 Teaching of Islam said...
Islam is the greatest of the greatest Religion. There is peace in each verses of Quran, and the one who recites it, gets peace also. Quran is only a holy book, responsibility taken by ALLAH only, no one can change its verses and ALLAH says that "Is there any one in this world who dare to make a single word like Quran"? but till to day there is no one who can claim that he can make Quran type word nor any one would be able to do the same. We all know that there are many alteration in the bible, evidently we can say this because the bible of America is different and bible of uk is different. thereby when any christian goes to take a bible, he is being asked which country's bible who want to take.
but there is no any same case with Quran. ALLAH is One so the Quran.
Fri Aug 12, 08:05:00 PM 2011 
 Chuck R said...
To "Teaching of Islam", et. al.
If you find peace by reading the Koran, good for you. Such peace is within YOU, not the book. How long does it last? Five minutes? An hour? A day? Your whole life?
We can find peace or anger within nearly any writing because "peace" is a emotion already within us. Different things provoke different emotions in different people. The Koran works for you. For many people, the Bible works.
Any human writing may contain phrases that stir the human heart. That doesn't make them sacred or written by God/Allah.
I find both the Bible and Koran to be so filled with nonsense and untruth that both are useless to me. They are books written by primitives for gullible children. Flowery phrases and emotion-rousing passages may make for an appealing work of fiction, but that doesn't make them true.
Sat Aug 13, 11:52:00 AM 2011 
 kami said...
Steve,
The "cruel" verses are there for justice, you seem to want a religious book without any form of punishment for a bad deed. What would be the point then, everyone will just do bad and not believe in God. If you cant handle the punishment dont do the crime, simple.
Sat Oct 08, 05:11:00 PM 2011 
 waseem said...
5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter
The context of this verse itself will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). Let us examine the verse in its proper context:
5:32-34 ...If any one slew a person - unless it be as punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
There are several points to note here. The first is the gravity of the offense. This is punishment for WAGING WAR against the Prophet of God and spreading evil and destruction. In modern terminology this would be considered “terrorism”. This is a punishment for such a severe offense, hence the severity of the punishment. As Muhammad Asad writes on this verse:
The present participle la-musrifun indicates their “continuously committing excesses” (i.e., crimes), and is best rendered as “they go on committing” them. In view of the preceding passages, these “excesses” obviously refer to crimes of violence and, in particular, to the ruthless killing of human beings. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an)
It is quite shocking to see how many Islam-haters will place this verse under the heading of “inciting Muslims to kill and wage war”, whereas the verse commands nothing of this sort! In fact, it comes directly after a verse prohibiting murder and likening the unjust murder of a single individual to the slaughter of humanity. The Qur’an purposefully describes the gravity of the sin before describing the punishment. The crime of murder and committing terrorist activities is regarded as such a severe violation in Islam, that a severe retribution has been prescribed. Waging war against God’s prophet is tantamount to waging war against Our Creator Himself. It is ironic that Islam-haters will present this verse to justify their claim that Islam supports terrorism, whereas Muslim scholars have always presented this verse as proof that Islam is vehemently opposed to terrorism.
Mon Oct 10, 08:49:00 AM 2011 
 waseem said...
5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter
The context of this verse itself will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). Let us examine the verse in its proper context:
5:32-34 ...If any one slew a person - unless it be as punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
There are several points to note here. The first is the gravity of the offense. This is punishment for WAGING WAR against the Prophet of God and spreading evil and destruction. In modern terminology this would be considered “terrorism”. This is a punishment for such a severe offense, hence the severity of the punishment. As Muhammad Asad writes on this verse:
The present participle la-musrifun indicates their “continuously committing excesses” (i.e., crimes), and is best rendered as “they go on committing” them. In view of the preceding passages, these “excesses” obviously refer to crimes of violence and, in particular, to the ruthless killing of human beings. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an)
It is quite shocking to see how many Islam-haters will place this verse under the heading of “inciting Muslims to kill and wage war”, whereas the verse commands nothing of this sort! In fact, it comes directly after a verse prohibiting murder and likening the unjust murder of a single individual to the slaughter of humanity. The Qur’an purposefully describes the gravity of the sin before describing the punishment. The crime of murder and committing terrorist activities is regarded as such a severe violation in Islam, that a severe retribution has been prescribed. Waging war against God’s prophet is tantamount to waging war against Our Creator Himself. It is ironic that Islam-haters will present this verse to justify their claim that Islam supports terrorism, whereas Muslim scholars have always presented this verse as proof that Islam is vehemently opposed to terrorism.
Mon Oct 10, 08:49:00 AM 2011 
 Fahim kamran mirza said...
i would rather say that pin pointing the harch verces of any book would not be right and the verses should be read through the context not just the line we as a muslim should not do as the other do they pin point the verces of the quran to let people know that this is why we are terriest.... which is wrong if we do the same thing to them it will be wrong because we should talk about peace and should spread the word of Allah and in one case if they dont want to listen point the same thing then we can put it for an argument to let them go 1 foot back and come on coommon terms quran reading
Tue Oct 11, 01:04:00 PM 2011 
 The Simon Of Oz said...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
Sat Oct 15, 06:52:00 PM 2011 
 RossPoldark said...
Can any Muslim tell me about Taqiyya in the Quran? Can you tell us what Dhimma means in the Quran?
Can you tell me about Qur'an 5:51,9:5? How about Qu'ran 47:4. Oh, and then there is Qu'ran 2:256. Qu'ran 48:29. Qu'ran:9:29. Can you also tell me what najis is, and who or what is considered najis? These are just a few things I am trying to get a clear understanding on here. You can post your response here. I will come back and read, and also learn. Thank you.
Fri Oct 28, 11:16:00 AM 2011 
 ecks why said...
the islam koran is a guide to being a warlord...
Mohamhead was a 7th century murdering warlord who rose to power on a river of blood surrounded by thugs and gangsters using intimidation, violence, deception and trickery to expand their criminal empire while mercilessly suppressing and killing their opponents and enriching themselves on stolen booty.
The koran is a collection of sayings and speeches by this diabolical madman claiming divine guidance from some mythical sky-god which has inspired generations of crazed fanatics to abhorrent behavior resulting in historys worst ever crimes against humanity starting 1400 years ago and still continuing even today.
graphics version, great for emailing :)
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1479/dangermoko.jpg
Sat Oct 29, 12:31:00 AM 2011 
 Richard said...
There are far too many comments here for me to investigate. Of the top ones, there was discussion of context picking ("proof texting" is a narrower term).
What I did not see in Steve's work is any effort at distinguishing invocations to violence vs simple reporting of violence.
In my present view, the Quran is very explicit at invoking the use of violence in the present, whereas the Bible reports past violence. That is, the Quran is normative in intent, where as the Bible's intent is, in large part, historical reporting.
Children growing up with the Bible look on the past as horrific, and the present as Christian progress to a peaceful life. They also see their Christianity as a matter of their own choosing... the only threat they face is God's disapproval in purgatory.
Children growing up with the Quran look on the past as the source of Holy commands that were acted on then and must be acted upon now! These children learn that to be anything but Muslim means going to Hell fire, as well as to be a target for being murdered, or at least for double amputation.
Mon Dec 26, 04:49:00 PM 2011 
 Unknown said...
Too bad we can't all be atheist, and just commit murder without the need to justify ourselves.
Wed Dec 28, 12:07:00 AM 2011 
 Jon said...
If all of these religious texts were truly the word(s) of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent deity, wouldn't you think that the deity in question would have written the books in a way that made them:
1. very easy to understand for all,
2. utterly unambiguous, and, therefore,
in absolutely no need of any 'interpretation', whatsoever, and,
have included every possible eventuality knowing, as every good omniscient being would, that things like guns, nuclear weapons, steam engines, jet aircraft, space travel, and the internet were going to be around?
Of course, the real problem is that not one of these omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent deities has, in spite of their supposed supernatural powers, revealed themselves to the masses, only to certain selected individuals with no camera crews around.
The only logical conclusions to be drawn from the above are that:
a) Men wrote these incomprehensible religious texts for reasons of their own, mainly to provide themselves with the power and means to control the, then, uneducated and gullible masses, and were thus able to ‘interpret’ them for heir own gain;
b) The non-appearance of all these non-existent deities to the masses is excused by those of faith by them insisting one has to have faith and, as a result, obey the rules of a given faith – and give its clerics your money – in order to meet the relevant deity in some sort of 'afterlife'.
My question to my own conclusion b), above, is; why?
Sun Jan 01, 10:37:00 PM 2012 
 Placibo Var said...
I completely agree with Mark, the first commenter.
You take lots of things out of context. The ones you don't, you haven't looked into it deeper, as there are many rules that govern a law.
For example "have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off". There is a process governing that. It is not applied if someone steals out of hunger or poverty. If the item stolen was obviously left unguarded, like a car unlocked or keys in the ignition. There has to be sufficient evidence. There might be more to it. I'm not an expert in this field. All the laws are meant as a deterrent. It is not out of violence or malicious intent.
God in the Quran does not go into details there and left the Prophet pbuh to expound on it. I know the Quran is a miracle out of evidence thus I submit to it. Out of ignorance I'm not going to surf my delusion of grandeur.
I can say that putting someone is prison is even more violent. Taking away a persons freedom is worse than death. But then, some of them do deserve it.
Once again I reemphasize the first commenter's point.
It is misleading. If you were truly clever then you are malicious. But I don't think you are, just wanting to make a small buck of this.
Thu Jan 12, 07:45:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
Placibo Var, and Mark, both need to learn just what rationalization is.
Anyone who is honest, anyone, and who reads the Quran with the idea that it might provide any kind of enlightenment at all, would throw it in pig manure by the end of Surah 2. It is clumsy, hate filled, bigoted, racist, murderous, mind corrupting filth. The only reason to read further is as academic research.
It is completely medieval and offers nothing but intellectual stagnation for the true believer and for any culture dominated by true believers and timid moderates.
Thu Jan 12, 09:22:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Comment Part 1 of 2
In all of this thread, I see – as I do so often – people saying that they believe in only one version of the 'revealed truth', almost exclusively having had no experience, knowledge or understanding of any of the hundreds of other 'revealed truths'.
But, for a bit of fun, let's look at reality. The overwhelming majority of those who profess a belief or faith can cite, with enthusiasm, precisely why each one of the hundreds of beliefs and faiths, other than his or her own, is wrong. All I ask is that, using exactly the same parameters of criticism, and adapting them to your own belief or faith, explain how it is any different to the ones you 'know' are wrong.
All believers are, in fact, atheists. They have absolutely no belief or faith in any of the religions in the world. Except their own. They will never believe in any other religion in the world unless they encounter compelling evidence that a religion other than their own is, in fact, true and, even then, the really truly true believer will discount such evidence, as they discount the undeniable fact that their is no rational evidence for their own belief.
A declared atheist is one who has succeeded in examining every religious faith or belief for indications that there is incontrovertible evidence that any of them stand up to scrutiny as being factual. If any religious belief or faith was found to be based on such evidence, any atheist would immediately alter their position. An atheist, then, believes in just one less faith or belief than believers do.
For example, there is incontrovertible evidence that the universe is 13.73 billion years old plus or minus 130 million years. (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html) There is incontrovertible evidence that our solar system is around 4.5 billion years old (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/solar-system-age/) There is also incontrovertible evidence that the earliest bipedal ancestor of homo sapiens (us) walked the earth 5.2 million years ago (http://www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0712011.htm) and that the fist known evidence of our own, distinct, species is known to be 196,000 years old.
The above reflect our latest scientific knowledge, based on the latest independent research and using the latest, reliable, tested and peer reviewed scientific techniques.
When it comes to, say, the Bible, there are those who claim that the Bible clearly states that earth is 6,000 years old. Why? Well, it says so in the Bible. How is that incontrovertible evidence? Well, that's easy, the authors of the Bible wrote in the Bible that the book, the Bible, was really and truly the word of their god, that means that, because the people who wrote the Bible say that it is the word of their god, everything in the Bible is the word of their god and, since they also wrote in the Bible that god knows all, whatever the writers of the Bible wrote must be true.
Any rational person will immediately see that the only evidence that anything in the Bible is true is that the Bible says it's true. That lies so far beyond any rational examination that no rational person can possible accept it, only those who have been conditioned or indoctrinated to accept it... but, of course, none of the numerous other, similarly fantastical works of other faiths which, by the same logic that I have used above, must be wrong, can possibly be true, right?
Fri Jan 13, 08:24:00 AM 2012 
 Jon said...
Comment Part 2 of 2
By using the same logic that the earth is 6,000 years old, it can also be seen, in the Bible, that our planet, each, is a disc suspended between two bodies of water with a solid roof, held up by columns, that has tiny holes in it through which we can see light at night that we call 'stars'. It's true. It says so in the Bible. And, be advised, everything else in the Bible is exactly as true as earth being a flat disk, god said so... mind you, in recent times, after scientists like Galileo (excommunicated for suggesting that earth orbits the sun, rather than the other way round... as it says in the Bible, God's word) started to research the matter, believers started to 'interpret' the Bible, true word of God, to make God's words fit the reality, rather than, again, the other way round.
Anyway, keep on believing in your own 'revealed truths'. Hey, they must be true, your god says they are true... and don't listen to any of those other pesky false gods, even though their believers believe in them for exactly the same reasons that you believe in yours. You believe in the only really true 'revealed truth', it's all those other guys that wrong! Right?
By the way, I read, in a really old book, that there's a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Mars and Earth the guy who wrote the book says in the book that he had the truth of the teapot revealed to him. It seems that he was sitting in cave somewhere and, honestly, ithe truth about the teapot was just there, right in front of him!
Apparently, no one has ever actually seen the teapot and it's so small that it has no noticeable gravitational effect on the rest of the solar system, so even our very best technology cannot detect it. Anyway, it's true. It's really there. It says so in a really old book so I believe it and so should you, after all, it's entirely sensible and, when I go and see special people who really know a lot more about this teapot than I do, they tell me it's true over and over again. I even give them money so that they can spend all their time telling me and others about how true the teapot is. If you do not believe it, you prove it's not true. You have to prove to me that it's not true because that's how belief works, it's up to you to prove it's not true and, until you can prove that it's not true, you have to believe that it is true as well, like I do.
Fri Jan 13, 08:25:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
Jon, there is incontrovertible evidence that there is a Universe of material objects, acting according to certain Natural Laws mankind is steadily elucidating.
There is no rational justification for proving that something isn't... that is the Logical Fallacy of Proving a Negative. In many ways it it is a part of Karl Popper's messed up, but widely seen as profound in academia, view of scientific method.
Ayn Rand, if read with thoughtful care, contrary to her shallow detractors, spotted such errors and explained them in her non-fiction and touched on many in Atlas Shrugged. Sometimes she did so with a subtlety the detractors failed to notice.
Sat Jan 14, 06:06:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
A Comment on Richard's Previous Message
As a campaigning atheist living in Ireland, my concentration has been solely on the Bible, I have yet to investigate the Qur'an for myself. However, colleagues of mine, you, Richard, and the antics of fundamentalist Islamists, have reinforced my view that it is the avowed aim of fundamentalist Islamists to drag themselves, their followers and, indeed, the rest of the world, back to the 7th century when the Qur'an was written.
It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians in fact, fundamentalist religious zealots of all stripes, have the intent of dragging civilisation back to a state in which they can rule with an iron hand, murdering those who disagree with with their warped vision of how the world should be.
Having met quite a few Muslims, as opposed to Islamists, I have no doubt that, in a similar way to most Christians, Jews, atheists, etc., they are content to live in a world that embraces differences and where each can learn from and so gain from others.
You are, Richard, doubtless correct in your view of the Qur'an. It is my intent to become more knowledgeable about that particular book of fairy tales as I am doing with the fairy tale book the Bible.
It will also interest me to compare and contrast the weird and subjective interpretations of both, in particular the ahadith, to analyse, for example, why women, gays, transexuals – in fact anyone who does not comply with the bigoted, racist and intolerant chauvanistic and misogynistic 'values' of these interpretations – can be derived and why followers allow them to be applied against any possible logical analysis.
Ultimately, if people want to believe in fairies, Father Christmas, ghosts, gods or prophets, good luck to them. It won't do them much, if any, good but will harm their rational mental development and, thanks to the vicious religious hatred that exists, could well do them physical harm. The overriding proviso is, do not come near me with your simple, irrational, bogus nonsense that, if it ever belonged anywhere, it was in the archaic ignorance of times long past.
Sun Jan 15, 06:59:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
Jon:
Can't disagree with that!! Wouldn't want to spent a minute longer than is necessary to grasp the evil & to negate any supposed positive claims.
Moderate Muslims are wickedly guilty of failing to think... and of tacitly support Islamofascism - knowing it is as murderous & oppressive as any imaginary Satanism.
Sun Jan 15, 04:48:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Richard,
I think it was Dawkins or, possibly, Sam Harris, that said that the 'moderate' believers – basically the ones who sit back and watch the violence be inflicted in the name of their religion – who are as much to blame as those who perpetrate the violence.
Whilst the 'moderates' are content to live their lives in a peaceful way, they acquiesce with the violence by doing nothing to take their religion back from the extremist fundamentalists. Perhaps, as you infer, they don't really want to.
The real blame, though, rests with governments, including the Irish government, that permit human rights abuses by permitting children below the age of reason to be indoctrinated by religious dogma which are, of course, only beliefs.
In Atheist Ireland (atheist.ie), we are attempting to at least have religious instruction banned from junior schools (age 5 to 13). The problem is then the previously brainwashed parents taking the kids to their churches to have them indoctrinated. Personally, I'd ban that, too, but you end up in a world of pain from parents demanding their human right to fill their kids' heads with religious mumbo jumbo and, in so doing, preventing their kids learning how to think instead of what to think.
It was definitely Sam Harris who said, when you hear on the news that a suicide bomber has blown himself and a bus full of people up, you don't ask what religion he was – we don't lie awake at night wondering what the Amish are going to do next.
Jon
Mon Jan 16, 02:03:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
I agree with you in every way, Jon, but one. Painful and wrong as it is to indoctrinate kids, freedom of speech & freedom of conscience specifically mean that no one can tell you or I what we may think constitutes parenting. This is why most countries limit parenting offenses to outright violence and/or failure to provide the basic necessities of life. It is a very slippery slope once on it!
Mon Jan 16, 12:13:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Richard,
You are, of course, correct.
The campaign that we are running is for religious instruction/indoctrination/faith formation to be removed from schools and replaced by religious education.
Our idea of religious education is that it will educate kids about as many belief systems as possible along with non-belief. No individual system will be treated with any favouritism, none will be ridiculed and all will be taught properly, maybe even by scholars from the various religions... and Atheist Ireland, of course.
It is only because kids are indoctrinated into one belief that they end up believing in that, and only that, belief. If kids are properly exposed to a whole range of conflicting ideologies at school, especially in schools that have kids coming from homes that practice a range of different religions and none, I think the chances are that they may well start thinking the whole idea of religion is exactly what it is, unsubstantiated nonsense.
Jon
Mon Jan 16, 09:37:00 PM 2012 
 Jeremy said...
I did not have time to read this whole thing, but I did read the first 10 or so comments. It is therefore possible that what I have to say has already been addressed, but I do not know so I will go ahead and say it. It does not matter which of the two books contains more verses that are "cruel". It only matters which of the two is advocating it. If you read a history book, you will find gruesome accounts of world war 2, but that does not make the history book evil, it makes it accurate. If the history book advocates such action, then it is evil. That is the difference. The Bible chronicles the events, the Koran advocates them.
Sat Jan 21, 01:01:00 PM 2012 
 Brianjaf said...
I think this question is a paradox and a WRONG one.
I have ready Qur'an many times, also read parts of Bible and Book of Mormon.
As a matter of Fact one third of Koran/ Qur'an comes from Bible. Which shows the connection between two religions and their source as one source.
Few points to consider specially about Qur'an:
- Qur'an has come to be the Book for all aspects of life, Religions, warship, Ethics, politics, Peace, social life, sexology, diet, business...etc including war and peace times.
so, if a BOOK ( Qur'an) wants to be the book of life, guiding all aspects of life without limiting it ( except moral things) it should contain and address all parts of humanity including SEX which is included, also relationship between humans, cultures, states and entities which involve peace and war ( as a matter of reality) not as something being advocated by Qur'an or Bible.
- Things related to war are regulations of war, restrictions to make the war A JUST war, nothing else.
It has in it, you shall not cut trees, kill unarmed people, worshipers in their temples or churches, children, women, animals, you shall not attack, you shall extend hand for peace unless the other side attacks, even when they attack you should not react with bigger or exaggerated force.
- It is clear that those CALLED/ SEEMINGLY quoted verses from Qur'an, not only out of text but ALSO played with
look at this link for the translations and you see how this fellow has intentionally or unintentionally played with verses in addition to taking them out of their context.
http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php#aya=2_6&qaree=Abdurrahmaan_As-Sudais_64kbps&trans=en_sh
- last point is that both Bible and Qur'an contain warnings and threats for disbelievers in the day of judgement or resurrection. That is something between unbelievers and GOD, and its the right of GOD to forgive them ( as he is the most merciful) or punish them as they deserve( since they have been warned by GOD , his messengers and his BOOKS.
and for those who have not had the chance to meet, know, hear or learn about any of those warnings, rules would be different and GOD is much more merciful than our own MOM.
so, do not never ever ever think that there is a way for YOU or anyone else to be more MERCIFUL than GOD.
All the mercy we see from MOM, animals and other beings is only one drop from the ocean of mercy of GOD.
as prophet Muhammad says: all the mercy you see from mom to their kids, animals to their babies and in humanity at all, is only 1% of God`s mercy, he has kept the 99% of the mercy for the day of reckoning, resurrection or judgment.. So why should I worry?
Tue Jan 24, 12:12:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Branjaf has apparently commented without reading the comments. If he has read the comments, he is being dishonest.
If he has read the Quran, as he says he has, he read it to glean justifications for Islam, as an Islamist sympathizer. No rational person can escape the misogyny, racism and nihilism of Surah 2, without some such motive. "Nazi sympathizers" did much the same thing: "Look how Hitler improved the German economy, made Germans strong and proud again."
Except the Nazis did not have the ruse of religious belief for their views. Worse, the voting support for Nazism was about 17 million. A PEW poll learned that one third of Muslims south and east of the Mediterranean ardently supported the killing of Americans and Jews. That is not 17 million, it is ~400 million. That Muslims use different language for their obvious beliefs and actions does not change the nature of those beliefs and actions, as sympathizers seem to recurrently & naively(?) believe.
Wed Jan 25, 08:55:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
The numbers below, for such vicious views, are not a matter of incidental, misguided thinkers in a large population. Nor are they a function of a few individuals who have 'hijacked' a great religion. They are a function of a concerted, dominant, philosophical view: in this case it is Islam. Islam's guidebook, & the source of their view, is The Quran.
Pew Survey of Muslim countries, (pdf p5) July 2007. There was some improvement by 2007, but the poll needs to be repeated, in light of the Arab 'Spring', actually a 'Fall' wherein Islamism is gaining political power.
Support the suicide bombing of civilians:
2002
74 % of Lebanese
47 % of Nigerians
44 % of Bangladeshis
43 % of Jordanians
33 % of Pakistanis
2007:
42 % of Nigerians
34 % of Lebanese
23 % of Jordanians
20 % of Bangladeshis
9 % of Pakistanis
8 % of Egyptians
Support Bin Laden killing Americans:
2003
72 % of Palestinians
59 % of Indonesians
56 % of Jordanians
46 % of Pakistanis
20 % of Lebanese
2007
57 % of Palestinians
41 % of Indonesians
38 % of Pakistanis
20 % of Jordanians
1 % of Lebanese
Islam is more evil than Nazism.
Thu Jan 26, 09:26:00 AM 2012 
 J. Kern said...
"Actually, the Bible pretty much teaches that bad things happen to people only because they've made a choice to separate themselves from God. Or, if they are a follower of God, that they've probably got some sin to get rid of in their life...or just need to be tested to be sure they'll stick around."
So, essentially, what you are saying is that god sometimes makes bad things happen to his followers in order to test whether they'd 'stick around'.
I don't get how that is not an outrage to people. Doing something like that to a person is considered unhealty, mentally unstable behaviour in a human being and a sure sign of majorinsecurity issues. But somehow, for god, it's ok to do that? No offense, but I seriously don't understand that people don't find stuff like this completely twisted.
Sat Jan 28, 10:24:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
J.Kern — exactly.
"stuff like this completely twisted"
It is deeply irrational, but most people were raised where the broad ideas in their lives were completely irrational, so they can actually move from one religion to another and think they are choosing a better way. To all such people, the unthinkable is the atheist.
Yet only atheism makes any sense at all. However, atheism by itself is terrible, if it is presumed to mean there are no moral principles. Ayn Rand presented the first rational, atheist moral system. Basically she proved it to be incontrovertible.
Sat Jan 28, 10:59:00 AM 2012 
 show83time said...
Two points I'd like to make: (1) great blog and great discussion in the comment boards, (2) isn't atheism just as dogmatic as religious fanaticism? In science one doesn't completely deny the existence of something else based on a lack of observable evidence. We couldn't observe cells for most of human existence, but would anyone say they didn't exist before the microscope? Of course not. Who knows what the future holds. The prudent scientist adheres to a system of skepticism: we cannot be for sure one way or the other (or perhaps more precisely "we cannot know if we know")
Tue Jan 31, 08:10:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
Re show83time
You have struck two related, but difficult to dissect, issues. First, scientific skepticism entails considering alternative explanations for apparent facts before considering an explanation to be true. Philosophical Skepticism holds that mankind can never achieve certainty with respect to the possible. The former is rational, the latter is widespread but irrational. Yet many academic scientists accept that nothing should be rejected unless proven otherwise, very much thanks to Karl Popper. This open ended acceptance of anything as possible is no justification for Gods.
Does that mean there really could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Karl Popper gives precedence to such arbitrary ideas over certain facts.
The following covers both positions and two stages in between. It helps to begin with the certain, to make the irrationality of the arbitrary more evident:
#1 Some things are absolutely certain.
E.g. that you exist is a fact of which I am absolutely certain!
In the very act of denying that statement, the speaker accepts that the statement exists, that there is an audience for his denial, that he & his thoughts exist by his acting upon it!
Many other things are absolutely certain, such as the fact that you commented on this blog, are human, breathe air for oxygen, and so on.
#2 Probable ideas are undemonstrated facts.
E.g. it is probable that there are thousands of unidentified species of fish in the oceans.
Facts about species identification, particularly in the oceans, include the fact that the species identification process has not been exhausted because a massive portion (73%) of the Earth's surface is oceanic and the waters beneath simply cannot be fully explored, seived, for every species. We may be certain that there is one unidentified species of fish, and probable that there are thousands. That new species continue to be discovered, even only weeks ago, constitutes evidence.
Things that are probable, are mainly interpolations of facts and natural laws that are known, and are natural, logical, applications of those facts.
#3 Possible ideas are extensions of facts into the unknown.
E.g. Planets in other solar systems may be suitable for supporting life.
Possible is similar to probable, but now the argument is without evidence, and is very much by extrapolation from known facts. It is not a strong position, it does not violate known fact, but it is not a truth.
#4 Arbitrary ideas have no supporting facts or evidence.
E.g. Intelligent alien beings from other galaxies are flying across millions of light years of space and are living among us.
No known facts support such travel, the existence of living organisms 'out there' let alone sentient organisms. It is all imaginary.
Gods, as defined by religious belief (supernatural, creating the universe, omnipotent, omniscient etc etc.) are utterly arbitrary claims that violate all known fact. Any claim of their existence is irrational &/or delusional. Those who accept the arbitrary on principle, "God has not been disproven", want to keep one foot in reality and one foot in the arbitrary. Their position actually denies reality & reason by allowing for unreality & unreason! Such is agnosticism.
Atheism is not dogmatic, it just rejects gods. Its only morality is that one's mind and life is not made for dwelling on and living according to, the arbitrary. Unfortunately, atheism offers no thorough epistemological, ethical or political principles. (Without such principles, it is true that many atheists —such as communists— hold their atheism in a dogmatic fashion.) The only atheist to establish such principles is Ayn Rand. In doing so she has been widely and unjustly vilified by those seeking to protect their arbitrary beliefs (that criticism applies to Leftists too).
cont'd
Tue Jan 31, 02:46:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Returning to science:
The prudent scientist accepts the facts of reality within the context upon which they are understood. As those facts mount, and integrate one with all the others, he finds he can logically structure them into a new natural principle or law. He probes outside that context, sometimes making considerable logical leaps which may be proven false.
The Wright brothers learned to integrate weight, lift, drag, roll, pitch, yaw in developing powered flight. As they proceeded, they accepted many facts of reality as being absolute. Their rules for flight in the rarified atmosphere of very high altitudes does not work, especially for helicopters, but that does not mean their scientific facts were false in any way. Within their context, those facts were and are absolute. The same is true with respect to Newton's Laws, despite claims that Einstein proved them wrong.
Tue Jan 31, 02:46:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
When I look at the contention that “We couldn't observe cells for most of human existence, but would anyone say they didn't exist before the microscope?”, my answer is that I don’t know. Is there any evidence of someone saying, randomly, that “cells don’t exist” before the invention of the microscope? Did a scientist posit the theory that cells do exist before the invention of the microscope and was challenged to prove this and, so, he or she invented the microscope? Or, perhaps, cells were discovered whilst something else was being researched, I can’t remember.
Randomly stating that ‘there is a god’ is an interesting start to a scientific debate. If a scientist made such a statement, he would, of course, be expected to provide evidence for such an outrageous claim. His evidence would be subjected to scrutiny by his peers and his experiments and observations repeated to ensure the same results were achieved. If the conclusion of these experiments was that there is, indeed evidence that ‘there is a god’, it would become an accepted theory, a theory I would accept, by the way.
On the other hand, randomly stating that ‘there is a god’ and then managing to convince others, by whatever non-scientific methods one chooses, to agree that ‘there is a god’ does not prove the existence of a god, all it proves is that some people are capable of convincing others that what they say is ‘true’.
By the way, I have a theory that everyone in the world should give me fifty dollars. I know I can’t prove the theory, but I’m hoping that, maybe, I can convince about a fifth of the population of the planet to believe that my theory is true. Don’t knock it, it worked for the Catholics, have you seen the obscene wealth in the Vatican?

Finally, just a couple of points raised by Richard.
To be honest, my view on extra-terrestrial life is that it is probable, rather than possible. I’ve held that view for as long as I can remember because I think that it is highly improbable that, around the billions of stars in each of the billions of galaxies in the known universe, there are not more instances of the requirements for the sustainment of life having occurred than just ours. I suppose I’m cheating because a planet meeting the specifications, Kepler 22b, was discovered only a couple of months ago. This discovery, I believe, should see the existence extra-terrestrial life moving from the possible colum to the probable column for more people than me.
The other matter that I have to mention is the use of the phrase ‘natural law’ Until a couple of years ago, I would probably have used ‘natural law’ and ‘laws of nature’ interchangeably. Since then, I have studied jurisprudence for my law degree. Like so many other aspects of the natural world, the religious – St. Thomas Aquinas, to name but one – have hijacked the phrase to describe the natural order of the universe... derived from his god. Sure, other, secular, jurists use the phrase ‘natural law’ in the way that you did but, to me, ‘natural law’ will forever be contaminated by the disease of religion so, when I refer to the ‘laws of nature’, if shall use the term ‘laws of nature’ or, even better, the ‘laws of physics.
Jon
(Ends)
Wed Feb 01, 10:31:00 AM 2012 
 pelayar dunia said...
Too much misconception in Islam, perhaps admin should learn how to read & learn the quran with the right person, u cannot read the quran without any basis of knowledge on the religion.Quran is not same like newspaper that u read daily, it more than that.Quran very special and unique, it store a lot of konwledge including huminity, history, future, science and more. However, people will speak how much knowledge in their mind, but open ur heart to know more on Islam. Find the knowledge with truth & justify it.A person's greatest asset is his heart.
If you don't know the purpose of life, then you don't have a life
Wherever his heart takes him, so goes his life...in this world and the hereafter.
"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind." (Bukhari)
Thu May 24, 05:28:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
pelayar dunia,
I do not know how much you have read of the comments here. Your reply ignores the very many truths they have brought forth, and as if to shut them out, blandly announces that it is "too much misconception".
Admin admits not having read the Quran, but at least one principle is inescapable: an ominiscient, omnipotent & omnipresent Being, and creator of the Universe whether you call It Jehovah, Allah, or God (JAG), is a self-contradicting impossibility.
Most religions have vicious & anti-human-life elements. The first of these elements is to blindly accept the claims of the religion. That is, they demand one give up the amazing capacity of humans to use conceptual thought & reason, for the purpose of living happily and peacefully. (Most large scale violence across history revolves around religion and irrational government). This blind acceptance begins with the idea of accepting JAG, and then heaps in various practices and morals. Some practices and morals make sense but others, to repeat, are vicious and anti-human-life.
Religious leadership brings a kind of power to the leaders: a control over the spirit of others. The anti-reason elements of religion are essential to them, so that they can maintain their leadership. Part of that maintenance includes omitting, minimizing or disregarding that which might call the religion into question. As centuries pass, even the Holy Books (being composed by humans in the first place) are edited, bit by bit, to suit each new era. This use of "taqiyya" keeps the support of 'moderate' Muslims', as 'useful idiots', in promoting the religion as one of peace and beauty. To the contrary. Islam, at it's core (i.e. Quran), is perhaps the worst most hate-filled, ugly, & mind-numbing of the major religions. It certainly is not the religion of peace! There are 109 verses in the Quran that call for Muslims to war against non-believers. "Some are graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers" etc. "Muslims who do not join in the fight are considered hypocrites by many imams, and radical imams consider these Muslims to be unbelievers (because they do not take the Quran, Allahs Words, literally)!
Fri May 25, 04:40:00 AM 2012 
 Saud Shahid said...
Some critics of Islam carelessly quote the following verse to illustrate Islam's aggressiveness:
And slay them wherever ye catch them.... (2:191)
However, the full quotation is:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (2:190-192)
Can anyone still justify what they "interpret" as Jihad. For Muslims, the word Jihad is not fighting, it's "fighting back".

And Muslims don't hate people from other religions, they do NOT promote violence. Here is a complete Surah from the Qura'an:
Say: O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (109:1-6)
Do you really think Muslims, who are so firm in Faith, would differ from the words of the Qura'an. If you don't think this is right, go check the verse out yourself. Surah 109, Qura'an.
Tue Jul 31, 05:15:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Part 1
Saud. I honestly believe that your's is the first coherent comment from someone who 'defends' the Qur'an that I have ever read, and I've read a lot.
I see your location is Pakistan and so I assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that you were told that you were a Muslim as far back as you can remember and that you have probably believed that ever since. This is, of course, why anybody has any specific religion at all, with the exception of a very small minority of people who switch from one set of beliefs to another.
I am very happy to say that I am an atheist. I was born and brought up in England and religion wasn't something that was rammed down your throat at school so, I guess because my parents were not churchgoers, I never got infected by any religious beliefs. I say 'infected' because I honestly believe that is what all religious people are. I notice that you list amongst your favourite books "Generally anything I can find". I'm not sure how censorship works in Pakistan (no religion should be so weak as to ban books) but, if you can, try to get hold of and read 'The God Virus' by Darrel Ray and 'Why We Believe in God(s)' by J. Anderson Thomson. I believe that you would find them extremely illuminating.
As to out-of-context quote mining, you are of course correct. However, whilst I am reasonably conversant with Biblical violence (the Judeo-Christian God certainly did a lot of smiting!) I am less familiar with the Qur'an.
I think that it is fair to say, though, that there is evidence of not only violence being committed and threatened but also exhortations to violence in both the Bible and the Qur'an. A good place to check out this kind of material is at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ which analyses the Bible, the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon under a number of different categories.
As Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes Religion."
And perhaps that is the crux of the issue. To me, all religions are equally invalid. I have observed that religious people seem to have varying strengths of, for want of a better word, 'faith'. I suppose liberal or moderate could be used to describe those who don't take their religious beliefs too seriously and fundamentalist or extremist could be used to describe those at the other extreme. These terms, by the way, are applicable to all religions in varying degrees.
The question as to whether one religious text is more or less “violent” than another is both absurd and irrelevant. In my 59 years on earth, I have never encountered a “violent” book. I’ve had a few fall on my head, I’ve dropped a few on my feet but I can honestly say that no book has ever displayed any aggression towards me or deliberately inflicted injury on me. As to whether the contents of a book are “violent”, I do not see what that has to do with anything.
Tue Jul 31, 08:06:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Part 1
Saud. I honestly believe that your's is the first coherent comment from someone who 'defends' the Qur'an that I have ever read, and I've read a lot.
I see your location is Pakistan and so I assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that you were told that you were a Muslim as far back as you can remember and that you have probably believed that ever since. This is, of course, why anybody has any specific religion at all, with the exception of a very small minority of people who switch from one set of beliefs to another.
I am very happy to say that I am an atheist. I was born and brought up in England and religion wasn't something that was rammed down your throat at school so, I guess because my parents were not churchgoers, I never got infected by any religious beliefs. I say 'infected' because I honestly believe that is what all religious people are. I notice that you list amongst your favourite books "Generally anything I can find". I'm not sure how censorship works in Pakistan (no religion should be so weak as to ban books) but, if you can, try to get hold of and read 'The God Virus' by Darrel Ray and 'Why We Believe in God(s)' by J. Anderson Thomson. I believe that you would find them extremely illuminating.
As to out-of-context quote mining, you are of course correct. However, whilst I am reasonably conversant with Biblical violence (the Judeo-Christian God certainly did a lot of smiting!) I am less familiar with the Qur'an.
I think that it is fair to say, though, that there is evidence of not only violence being committed and threatened but also exhortations to violence in both the Bible and the Qur'an. A good place to check out this kind of material is at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ which analyses the Bible, the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon under a number of different categories.
As Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes Religion."
And perhaps that is the crux of the issue. To me, all religions are equally invalid. I have observed that religious people seem to have varying strengths of, for want of a better word, 'faith'. I suppose liberal or moderate could be used to describe those who don't take their religious beliefs too seriously and fundamentalist or extremist could be used to describe those at the other extreme. These terms, by the way, are applicable to all religions in varying degrees.
The question as to whether one religious text is more or less “violent” than another is both absurd and irrelevant. In my 59 years on earth, I have never encountered a “violent” book. I’ve had a few fall on my head, I’ve dropped a few on my feet but I can honestly say that no book has ever displayed any aggression towards me or deliberately inflicted injury on me. As to whether the contents of a book are “violent”, I do not see what that has to do with anything.
Tue Jul 31, 08:07:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Part 2
The problem, as I see it, is how much any individual is influenced by what they read or, more accurately, what they are told by others is the interpretation of what they have read.
It seems to me, from what you have written, that you would be unlikely to pick up a Qur’an and decide that it tells you that everyone who is not a Muslim belonging to your own particular sect must die and that you must be one of those doing the killing. It also seems to me that you would not particularly welcome a nuclear holocaust destroying the planet on the basis of the ‘fact’ that all non-believers will suffer for eternity but you, because you happened to pick(?) the right sect of the right religion will be luxuriating in paradise for eternity. These thoughts are not specific to one religion. To be honest, I was probably more terrified by Sarah Palin saying that she would have no problem with pressing the nuclear button than any Muslim threatening a nuclear holocaust. Right now, the highest probability of a fundamentalist, extremist religionist getting control of a nuclear arsenal – and taking actions that would prompt a war – is in the good old USA.
So, I hope that we can agree that it is not a ‘battle’ between religions as to whose religious text has more violence in it than another (that is, frankly, no more valid than religionists arguing whose imaginary god is the best) that is the problem with, well, religion, it is what those who have ‘got’ religion do about what is written in their own god-dictated book.
I hope that you can agree that there are many people who interpret their religious texts in such a way that they believe that their god is telling them to fight and kill – in a very peaceful way, of course. I would even go so far as to say that even if there were no religion on the planet, groups of people would collect together and find something to fight over with others. In fact, Jonathan Swift, in his brilliant satirical parody, ‘Gulliver’s Travels’, told the tale of the ‘Big-endians’ and the ‘Little-endians’ who fought a civil over which end of a boiled egg should be broken.
Of course, if you want to read the real truth of how the universe was created, why we are here and what we should do while we are alive on this planet you should read… an awful lot more than one book!
It was a genuine pleasure reading your comment. I assume that English is not your first language but I can assure you that your comment is in degrees of magnitude in advance of what any American fundamentalist/creationist could write. In fact, the only part that I could not understand is where you said, ‘Can anyone still justify what they "interpret" as Jihad’. Although I think what you were saying is that Islam teaches that Muslims should defend themselves but not strike first and that the correct translation of Jihad is ‘to fight back’.
Tue Jul 31, 08:08:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Saud, I agree with Jon, with respect to the clarity of your comment. (I also agree over the universal wrongness of religious belief... & hold reason & a rational morality are the only proper guide to Life).
With the particular quotation you discuss, you are correct, however there are other "slay the unbeliever" verses in the Qur'an that do not have the qualifying context you have pointed out.
Why did you pick that one example? The most decent reason would be that you really believe that that one verse is characteristic of the Qur'an. (But it is not.)
Alternatively, under taqiyya your choice of that particular verse would be to deceive infidels (who do not know the Qur'an) until we are powerless to resist the Islamic jizya & complete dhimmitude (on pain of death).
This latter point is the purpose behind this sentence, in your quotation, "Such is the reward of those who suppress faith." Fitna (conflict in faith) is caused by all who do not worship Allah. Thus the verse is not as benign as you might think. Islam cannot rest until non-Muslims are converted or eliminated
I stick to my earlier point, contrary to Jon,
— that the Bible describes violence in the Judeo-Christian past while objecting to it for the present,
— whereas the Qur'an advocates violence as a solution, for what it views as moral transgression, in the present.
Wed Aug 01, 07:27:00 PM 2012 
 Unknown said...
You've made a quantitative comparison, which assuming that the counts are correct, it
gives a comparison btw the 2 books.
There's an intensity or extensity factor which is hard to consider, like the length of the
passages, and the intensity (rating) of the violence.
But there's a crucial factor that those numbers don't account for. 1) Who enacts or is
encouraged to enact the violence? 2) Who are the victim or intended victims of the
violence? 3) I the violence focused in time, targets, and place? 4) What is the rationale
for the violence?
B/c the numbers don't show the level of violence qualitatively btw the 2 books. Let's look
at the points 1 to 4:
1) Who enacts or is encouraged to enact the violence? It's not the same a passage that
says that God was angry and punished someone violently, than one that encourages men to
act violently.
Ex: The LORD is a man of war. Exodus 15:3 In this quotation there's no exhortation to
believers to act violently.
Fight in the way of Allah. Quran 2:244 is an exhortation open in time, targets, etc.
2) Who are the victim or intended victims of the violence? It's not the same a violent
passage that narrates something that happened to some people or followers of an ideology
or race that's now extinct, than a writing that encourages violence against people, races
or followers of an ideology that exists today.
Ex: let's say the Bible when some town is destroyed is not the same than Koran 5:33:
talking about infidels "... crucify them or cut off hand & foot from opposite sides..."
this is an ongoing command that incites violence not one occurrence in time, but ongoing
timeless violence on billions of people who aren't Muslims.
3) Is the violence focused in time, targets, and place? It's not the same violence that is
focused to a certain relatively small group of people, that happened in a brief period of
time, in a specific place, than ongoing violence over long periods of time, on abroad
population of targets, all overa continent or the globe. In this aspect the Koran and
other books the Hadith & the Sira are much more violent than the Boible.
4) What is the rationale for the violence? All violence is not equally justified. It's not
the same trying to reconquer lans that has been taken from you than to kill people just
b/c they don't agree with you.
Finally, there's a crucial point here, and it's that only b/c a book says you have to do
something, that doesn't justify that you actually have to do it. I don't see any
Christians killing whole villages, or smashing the skulls of babies against stones in any
river or anything like that. But on the Muslim side, there's been ongoing violence for
centuries. They're actually acting on the Koran's violence, and that makes a huge difference.
Thu Aug 09, 10:16:00 AM 2012 
 Unknown said...
You've made a quantitative comparison, which assuming that the counts are correct, it gives a comparison btw the 2 books.
There's an intensity or extensity factor which is hard to consider, like the length of the passages, and the intensity (rating) of the violence.
But there's a crucial factor that those numbers don't account for. 1) Who enacts or is encouraged to enact the violence? 2) Who are the victim or intended victims of the violence? 3) I the violence focused in time, targets, and place? 4) What is the rationale for the violence?
B/c the numbers don't show the level of violence qualitatively btw the 2 books. Let's look at the points 1 to 4:
1) Who enacts or is encouraged to enact the violence? It's not the same a passage that says that God was angry and punished someone violently, than one that encourages men to act violently.
Ex: The LORD is a man of war. Exodus 15:3 In this quotation there's no exhortation to
believers to act violently.
Fight in the way of Allah. Quran 2:244 is an exhortation open in time, targets, etc.
2) Who are the victim or intended victims of the violence? It's not the same a violent passage that narrates something that happened to some people or followers of an ideology or race that's now extinct, than a writing that encourages violence against people, races or followers of an ideology that exists today.
Ex: let's say the Bible when some town is destroyed is not the same than Koran 5:33: talking about infidels "... crucify them or cut off hand & foot from opposite sides..."
this is an ongoing command that incites violence not one occurrence in time, but ongoing timeless violence on billions of people who aren't Muslims.
3) Is the violence focused in time, targets, and place? It's not the same violence that is focused to a certain relatively small group of people, that happened in a brief period of time, in a specific place, than ongoing violence over long periods of time, on a broad population of targets, all overa continent or the globe. In this aspect the Koran and other books the Hadith & the Sira are much more violent than the Boible.
4) What is the rationale for the violence? All violence is not equally justified. It's not the same trying to reconquer lans that has been taken from you than to kill people just b/c they don't agree with you.
Finally, there's a crucial point here, and it's that only b/c a book says you have to do something, that doesn't justify that you actually have to do it. I don't see any Christians killing whole villages, or smashing the skulls of babies against stones in any river or anything like that. But on the Muslim side, there's been ongoing violence for centuries. They're actually acting on the Koran's violence, and that makes a huge difference.
Thu Aug 09, 10:24:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
"Unknown" has appropriately detailed the point I made on Mon Dec 26, 04:49:00 PM 2011. The Quran exhorts Muslims to act now, against people of today. If the exhortations to violence are mitigated in one part of the Quran, in another part they are NOT. Experts seem to agree that the much more violent material was written last and is supposed to override the earlier material.
Thu Aug 09, 11:35:00 AM 2012 
 Jon said...
As I think I may have pointed out previously, since both books are basically works of fiction – in the Bible's case, the eventual writing down of many times distorted myths and fantasies (dragons, unicorns, leviathans anyone?) – and in the Qur'an's case the unsubstantiated ramblings of a man claiming to have heard voices in a cave – and later stated to have hitched a lift on a passing flying horse – one might as well be comparing Burgess's 'A Clockwork Orange' with King's 'Misery'.
What maters to me is that I live my own life in a way that I never intentionally inflict harm on others and, whenever I can, I help others. My favourite way of helping them is to help release them from the oppression, suffering and mentally repressive evil that is religion.
I shall continue to live my ethical and moral life without attacking, hating or attempting to stop from practicing irrational religions, anyone. In return, I expect to be left free to go about my life unimpeded by those who feel that they must attempt to rule my life based on some random religious text – from one of the 3,700 or so religions out there.
Whilst I have no ill will towards anyone because of their beliefs, I do, and I will continue to, attack all religions – all 3,700 equally – for their complete irrationality and the damage they to the human race.
Even this stupid question, "Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?", is nonsense and only aimed at pitting one set of irrational myths and fairy tales against another set of myths and fairy tales. In much the same way that kids say, "my Dad's better than your Dad", the religious are, in effect, saying, "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend".
If the religious could only apply the same 'logic' to their own irrational beliefs that they apply to everyone else's irrational beliefs, and realise that, ultimately, all 3,700 religions are identical in their stupidity, the world would be a much better place.
Remember, ALL religious people are atheists when when it comes to ANY religion but their own. The religious don't believe in 3,699 gods, I don't believe in 3,700.
Thu Aug 09, 05:23:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Jon wrote,
"I expect to be left free to go about my life unimpeded by those who feel that they must attempt to rule my life based on some random religious text – from one of the 3,700 or so religions out there."
And 'there's the rub'. There are quite a few religions among the 3700 with members who not only want to impede your life, they want to slaughter your atheist ass. Some of the flock may be teachable, and might become peaceful enough for you to live without their interference. Others are not teachable. They are the equivalent of a mindless rabid bear or chummed white tip shark. You must make yourself safe from them!
That means you must promote a proper police, court system and military —that relentlessly enforces your Right to Life, Liberty & Property. That means you have to oppose all religious interference with those rights.
Altruism is the morality of the religious Right and of the socialist Left, and the basis for the arguments they use to loot your property (for the needy) and to proscribe your liberty (so that you do your part for 'society'. - that is they want YOU to sacrifice things from your life. They want to 'eat' you, like the bear or shark, but in smaller chunks, and they must be repelled.
Thu Aug 09, 06:22:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Richard,
I'm afraid that I don't know where you live but here in Ireland, and also where I'm from – England – and, from what I've seen wherever I've travelled in Europe, the "military" is not a civil force that can be used on the streets to fight the people, only for emergencies like flood, power cuts, etc. The police in neither Great Britain or Ireland routinely carry firearms and the courts systems operate under the written (apart from the UK) constitutions of the various States, as voted for by the people, and completely separate from government control.
I do, indeed, fight against religious interference. I am a member of Atheist Ireland and we are working to see a complete separation of (the Roman Catholic) church and Sate and the introduction of a State education system where it will be illegal to instruct, indoctrinate or form the faith of any child in any religion.
Ironically, in England, this is virtually already the case. Ironically because the head of State – Queen Elizabeth II – is also head of the Church of England which itself is the established church.
I am not opposed to fighting – I served in the Royal Air Force – however, I would never go looking for a fight and would always seek a negotiated solution to any problem.
Also, I am a member of the Irish Labour Party, what you would refer to as the 'socialist Left'. My party is currently in a coalition government with a centre right party. Living in Europe, I expect social democracy to exist and I have grown up in systems where the weakest in society were not left to rot while the super-rich got even richer. I like that. I don't see paying taxes as 'looting', I see it as a contribution to the society I live in to make it a fair society where all are treated with dignity and all have access to the basic needs of life – shelter, food, fuel, education and health care. To me, that's not looting, that's caring.
I was also brought up in a world were big business and banks were not given a free hand to do what they like and where the disgusting greed that has destroyed so many in the last 10 to 15 years – whilst making the super-rich even richer – was neither acceptable or encouraged.
I care about my fellow human beings, something big business and banks do not. I genuinely cannot understand how the people in charge can sleep at night. I was astounded, for example, that big business USA even outsourced the manufacture of the USA team's Olympic clothing but I shouldn't have been, I suppose. If you save a couple of cents per item, it mounts up to bigger bonuses for the bosses and more money for he rich investors. And if the jobs of the ordinary citizens are going to some desperately underpaid foreigner rather than a now-unemployed fellow countryman, then all the better.
No, I think I'll choose democratic socialism, an unarmed police force and a lack of paranoia over the alternative, thank you.
Thu Aug 09, 07:34:00 PM 2012 
 Unknown said...
Man I couldn't understand if you're British or American of live in the US or Ireland. Don't make such a big deal about the sportmen clothes made in China. Probably the suits & underwears of many politicians in the party you favor were made in China too. Things have been made in China for almost half a century. Don't you know that GM's CEO who is Obama's friend is outsourcing jobs to China, creating jobs in China with US-taxpayer dollars while in the US we have the highest unemployment rate ever?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting ur post, but if u r a communist, why haven't you moved to Cuba yet? They have a 53 y/o dictatorship which has all the "free" things you want. How comes you're not living there? That paradise's been waiting for you 53 years! Comon move over there, man, pot ur money where ur mouth is!!!
Fri Aug 10, 08:17:00 PM 2012 
 Chuck R said...
Richard said: "Altruism is the morality of the religious Right and of the socialist Left..."
Altruism is a human instinct, developed over millions of years due to the necessity of our need to get along with the rest of our group (family, clan, tribe, village, etc.). Humans are an intensely social species (eusocial is the term). Anything that promoted bonding within the group was reinforced through natural selection. Altruism is one such bonding force. Language is another.
Children instinctively behave altruistic some of the time. They also instinctively behave "selfish" some of the time. We are all both selfish and altruistic. There is no easy balance between these two instinctual forces.
To brand altruism as some sort of 'learned' evil, and to reject it's importance, is to amputate 1/2 of human nature. You wind up with a mutilated travesty of a human being.
Altruism is not a morality in and of itself. Rather, in conjunction with other social binding instincts, it gives rise to morality.
Sat Aug 11, 12:46:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Chuck R
Determinism, including genetic determinism, is a self-contradiction and intellectually bankrupt viewpoint. Mankind has evolved free will, and the contents of his mind are not pre-determined. Though influenced by hormones, nerves and other structural features that influence his experiences they neither determine his conclusions nor his actions.
Altruism is self sacrifice. It is the relinquishing of greater values in exchange for a lesser value. A parent who dies by throwing himself in front of a train, whilst pushing his child out of harms way is not acting altruistically. That act is selfish... one would rather die knowing his child would live, than live knowing he failed to save the life of his child.
Human Nature is first and foremost a function of thinking. Accepting such nonsense as Determinism is an abdication of that personal responsibility.
I suppose it never occurred to you that if such determinism is true, there is no argument you could possibly use to change my view! The fact that you just tried is your own contradiction. However, contrary to your hypocritical claims about humanity living a contradiction, you can rectify it.
I did a quick Google on Free Will, and promptly encountered a whole mass of excerpts from Ayn Rand. She makes some darn smart points on free will, even if you dislike her, overall. Since they are just excerpts, it stands to reason that to properly understand her points the entire article or book should be read. I've seen a lot of people dismiss her ideas, only to find out they were repeating what other people said, and never actually read/understood what she wrote.
Sat Aug 11, 03:19:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Exactly. To use a well-worn cliché, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
I wonder, sometimes. Do these people who believe that altruism isn't necessary believe that they can make their own computers – from sand? Generate their own electricity by constructing a generator from raw materials – and mining or drilling for the fossil fuels to power it? Grow their own food, make their own clothes, build their own houses? Oh, and heal themselves, operate on themselves and develop the drugs they need?
Morons.
Sat Aug 11, 04:06:00 PM 2012 
 bob said...
Here is something from a neutral objective study of Islam done by a research institution.
Real Islam and dualistic logic.
...the doctrine of Islam developed in Mecca contradicts the doctrine developed in Medina. Which is the real Islam? there is not a real Islam in the sense of resolving apparent contradictions between the two. Both persuasion-jihad and domination-jihad can be applied as needed.
Mohammed revealed a new logic, the logic of unresolved contradiction, the logic of duality. Two contradictory statements can both be true if Allah says they are. Therefore niether is false.
For instance, Mohammed was involved in a violent event every seven weeksfor the last nine years of his life, but Mohammed is the prophet of the religion of peace. That is a contradiction but, inside of dual logic, both sides of the contradiction are true. Both peace and violence advance Islam; both are good and true. Both are Islam. That is the message of the Sira and the power of Islam.
Naming.
All of the names for events and descriptive terms used by Islam come from the Triology (The Koran, the Sira or biography of Mohammeds life, and the Hadith or traditions). But kafirs (unbelievers) don't use these terms or names.
Some past history: The jihad of Umar burst out of Arabia and crushed the Christian world of Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the middle-east. The Christians recorded it as an "Arabic war." When Islam invaded Europe, Europeans called it a "Turkish invasion." The jihad against Spain was an "invasion by the Moors." The Muslims called these events jihad.
In the early nineteenth century America sent the Navy and Marines to war against the Barbary pirates on the Berber coast in North Africa. For centuries the Islamic Barbary pirates had raided Europe and taken nearly a million white slaves, and their shipping raids in the Mediterannean had taken a great toll. But the Muslims never called their naval raiders "Barbary pirates." They called them 'ghazis,' sacred raiders. A raid by Mohammed against the kafirs' caravans was called a 'ghazwah.' The Muslims were clear that naval raids by the "Barbary pirates" were actually jihad by the army of Mohammed. Naming them "pirates" showed that the kafirs had no idea about the doctrine and history of Islam.
Look at the news today. The media report an 'intifada,' uprising, by the Palestinians against the Israelis. But the terms 'intifada,' 'Palestinian,' and 'Israeli' are misnomers. The real terms are 'jihad,' 'Muslim' and 'infidel,' if we follow the Koran. The doctrine of political Islam clearly states that jihad is to be waged by all Muslims against all Jews and other kafirs. It's no different today than it was 1400 years ago in Islam...
What do the terms, "moderate Muslim" and "extremist Muslim" actually mean? Only Islam can define what a Muslim is. According to the Trilogy, a Muslim is anyone who follows the pattern (sunna) of Mohammed. What kafirs call a moderate, i.e. peaceful, Muslim is really a Medinan Muslim, one following the words and actions of the Prophet when he lived in Medina [friendly while getting a foot in the door]...
The naming of events by kafirs does not convey the right meaning. Muslims' names for themselves and their actions connect events and people with Islamic history and doctrine and shows a continuing process. Kafir names are temporary, do not connect events, and show no historic process...
Excerpt from: Mohammed and the Unbelievers, www.cspipublishing.com
Sun Sep 23, 05:27:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Quite so, Bob!
Sun Sep 23, 06:19:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Quite so, Bob!
Sun Sep 23, 06:20:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Jon, Of course you
"wonder, sometimes. Do these people who believe that altruism isn't necessary believe that they can make their own computers – from sand?" etc.
That is a complete and utter misinterpretation of what Rand is saying! Such understandings abound among people who only copy what others say, rather than reading the source.
Briefly, every commodity (or good) is made because someone finds it useful to their lives. If it is good enough to trade with someone else, for whatever good that next person makes, then each person benefits from the original production of the other.
It does not matter how many levels of production you want to go through, e.g. from sand to silicon chip, each (productive) person along the way adds HIS particular measure of individual, independent effort, for which he is paid.

The final product (laptop?) is not the product of some amorphous collective, it is the product of particular individuals in a long chain. Some of those individuals contribute basic labor, a few others may have thought up (components of) the entire design. When an individual brings forth an original idea it came from his mind alone. It does not matter that someone else might think of it if he hadn't, because he is 'the one' who did think of it. All of human achievement is of this nature: whether big steps or small, perhaps built on the shoulders of predecessors the particular step can only be that of one independent mind. Just as no one can (fully) breathe for another, so no one (nor group) can think for another. Every new thought could only have come from one independent mind, even in think tanks or brainstorming sessions, each new idea originates in only one mind at a time.

Yes, the sum of parts of the product is greater than the disconnected parts, but the individuals who put the work in it do not similarly add up to a whole! Those who think so are part of one of the two greatest hoaxes in all of humanity: collectivism (aka socialism or communism) and all claims of the Supernatural.
When a man puts together a business, he may use thousands of things used by other men, acquired by trade, but that man puts his business together his way. He ,may coordinate with others, but it was his vision that guided it . . . Steve Jobs being a great example. Jobs set the standards, not only for the products, but also for the type of minds that would work with him to come up with the end product.
It is all individual, from top to bottom. That is the American way that made it a great country. The idea that the individual should be viewed as subordinate to the group is what the Democrats espouse and you have articulated, is the fallacy in Obama's "you didn't build that" AND in the USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea and many other communist dictatorships. In those countries the people are individually enslave to the herd around them. The tighter the state the worse their prosperity, and more starvation, the more stagnant technical progress, & the more deaths.
Sun Sep 23, 06:45:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Richard,
I should say, first of all, that I am quite capable of having my own thoughts. It would be odd were it not so having managed to struggle through 59 years of life to date.
My main experience has been in large system (i.e. not Windows) computer systems development. Whilst I distain “management-speak”, such as, “there’s no ‘I’ in team” [there is, by the way, a ‘me’, if you look hard enough], I can say that no single individual on any development team that I have worked on could have taken any of those systems zero to full implementation.
It is absolutely true that, during problem-solving sessions, an individual will, eventually, put together a number of ideas floated into a coherent solution, but not always the same individual.
In my own experience, then, I can say that the resulting, working system would not have performed its designed task were only one of the team to have have attempted the full development cycle on their own and the system would either have not been completed at all or would have failed, catastrophically, in a relatively short period of time. In fact, I witnessed precisely such a catastrophic failure once when a dumb manager and an overconfident developer tried to do a one-man system development.
Certainly, it is likely that, in big business, an individual may suggest that a certain process may be better performed by automation than manually but that is hardly an inspirational, ground-breaking idea. Does it really need someone in a motor car manufacturer’s company to even say, for example, “wouldn’t it be a good idea if we could get our cars to go further on a litre of fuel than they do already”? Does working towards that goal not require a team comprising individuals of different skill sets each contributing to the whole – a more fuel efficient engine?
And, with respect to America being a “great” country, it rather depends upon where you are looking from. I have to say that I was personally delighted to see one of those rare, excellent US TV shows that dared to say what many Europeans already know about how imaginary the “greatness” of the US is by any independent, international standards. If you have not viewed it already, you might be interested in watching this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI7Oq8y-jXA
And, by the way, if it’s that great, how come it’s in hock to the evil Chinese communist state for $1.2 trillion? And that’s not down to the Democrats, the US had the strongest economy I can remember under Bill Clinton – it was Bush the Dumber that got the country into the sh*t hole it’s in now and Obama is left putting on his NBC suit to clear it up. Let’s just hope that the man with magic underpants loses in November so that the next greed-driven Republican – who as sure as night follows day will be elected in four year’s time – will at least be kicking the 47% of US citizens about whom, if the Republicans could give less of a sh*t about, they would, from a higher base before the rich stop paying any taxes at all… yet still benefit from what they pay for.
Jon
Mon Sep 24, 06:54:00 PM 2012 
 bob said...
My apologies for mistyping a small portion of the exerpt (a couple of missed lines) from 'Mohammed and the Unbelievers' in my previous comment. It should read:
What do the terms, "moderate Muslim" and "extremist Muslim" actually mean? Only Islam can define what a muslim is. According to the Triology (the Koran, The Sira or biography of Mohammeds life, and the Hadith or traditions), a Muslim is anyone who follows the pattern (sunna) of Mohammed.
What kafirs (unbelievers) call a moderate, i.e. peaceful, Muslim is actually a Muslim behaving as Mohammed did when he lived in Mecca [friendly while getting a foot in the door].
And an extremist Muslim is really a Median Muslim, one following the words and actions of the Prophet when he lived in Medina.
www.cspipublishing.com
Mon Sep 24, 09:58:00 PM 2012 
 paradise said...
the word perfect is the problem...the idea is it is strongly linked ot out god, and yet we
observe none of it.
the texts tell of a god who makes mistakes.
we cannot know perfect, even if it did exist...we cannot comprehend or even lend a single
example of perfect.
it is the perfect totem..it is a coping result...a myth...
we have it wrong...the texts are right.
we believe falsely at the most fundamental of all truths.
god did not perfectly create this universe
and humans can never know perfect.
and the reason why this is true, is because, perfection got poisoned before even the
moment of creation.
the designer, all knowing, set into motion, a universe that was not perfect..and humans
that also are not perfect.

all of the reasons, and the timing, and the waiting..I have heard all (almost) of these
reasons ...god's will...he has season...etc...etc.
Fri Sep 28, 08:32:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Jon, no one was questioning your thinking ability, I am here because it is good, so please avoid taking the wrong spin on a phrase.
(I like to think of an all caps TEAM, where every straight line comprises an "I". Each individual seeks a goal only attainable by a group, and works in his or her best capacity to maximize the group achievement.)
Your objections to the idea that individuals are the source of achievement consists, IMO, of several Straw Men.
Rand's argument does not dismiss or belittle collaboration. Nor does it suggest that one person must know all there is to know about everything, at every level, of a project. Surely you can see that both arguments would be as obvious to her as to you.
It remains that the mind is an attribute of the individual. In a group situation, each contribution comes from each mind, not from 'the group'. Still, a group of timid un-imaginative minds will not proceed as well as it will with one great mind. That one mind may even be held back by the others (a problem with non-hierarchical committees where decisions are by vote).
America has been declining rapidly perhaps most notably, but not only, due to FDR. A certain amount of American 'meddling' was a completely legitimate effort to maintain honest trade with nations that reneged on the rights and property they once assured American businessmen.
(British colonialism was founded in efforts at mutual trade to mutual benefit, and there was no problem so long as trade was honest. The fighting was always over duplicity - sometimes due to a rotten Brit, but more often due to foreign duplicity.)
The video to which you link demonstrates the great weakness of Americans. So many have no clue what great principles America was founded upon, and why it progressed so brilliantly in the 19th Century then rotted into what the blond man still thinks is "American". Whether true or not, of Ben Franklin, "It's a Republic, if you can keep it." But what he was referring to was not any republic system. He was referring to a unique one that recognized Individual Rights to Life, Liberty (incl. Property) and the Pursuit of Happiness. None of the countries that blond man in the video lists have ever had proper rights & freedoms. All are compromised, as are the American ones, compared to The Founders intent. America is the only nation that had that intent, in writing. It is the best hope for returning to them. Why?
(cont'd)

Mon Oct 01, 01:06:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
...
Those Rights arise from the fact that they are necessary for a man to live by his mind , and not by the dictates of another. It is the moral prerogative that one pursue one's own goals by one's own judgment and not perform as a puppet -- with someone else, or some group however elected, pulling the strings. All of history, and most political geography of today shows that is true empirically, but it is also true philosophically. Inescapably so. The bloody course of socialism is clear, yet Americans still choose socialism over their original system.
The neat trick that the Socialists have enabled, is to lay the blame for every socialist/fascist failure on capitalism and individualism. Most Americans have not been smart enough to recognize that fact. In outrage they demand . . . more socialist/fascist regulation. The cycle continues.
Bush was poor, and so was Reagan, Carter etc. etc. Obama's solution is to double down on the very things that brought him the trouble he inherited (as per my second last sentence in the previous paragraph). His is sheer lunacy: stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is un-American. Want to help Paul, do it yourself! Then, if Paul actually is a wastrel, only your resources are wasted -- by doing it yourself you also do not have to pay for an expensive bureaucracy to manage the redistribution. YOU will be better off.
No offense, but the arguments you presented are commonly echoed & misleading. They are part of the problem that has been gradually snowballing for 70 years. Try reading "Capitalism: The Unknown. Ideal"
Mon Oct 01, 01:07:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
Jon,
E.O.Wilson, astonishingly, has come to the same conclusion, after most of his life was spent believing human progress is a social process. He has come around 180 degrees:
Audience Questioner: You're talking about progress in society as coming as a result of groups . . . working together. But on the other hand, real genius of individuals who are acting, actually selfishly, for their own benefit and aggrandizement, per se, are the ones who are really making the greatest progress in our society. Do you feel that the groups will overwhelm these individuals?
Wilson: No, not at all. In fact, I couldn't agree with you more . . . And I've been in on a lot of discoveries, you know, new developments, and so I have known people intimately that were doing it themselves. So I know how real innovation takes place, and it's not “groupthink.” It is not going to come from taking a bunch of real bright people and putting them in one of these “think tanks” and asking them to sit together in front of a blackboard and think together and produce great ideas. That's not the way it works. It works when one mind—usually rebellious, in a way; usually ambitious; enterprising—decides to do something new, preferably where no one has tried before, and goes for it. And what you find then, time and again, is an individual like that, a real innovator. And they're in every society, they're in every larger group, you have to find who they are. In high school, for example, they'll be the “nerd,” the kid “least likely to succeed,” who's on no team but who's always doodling with something, or crazy about the chemistry lab, or something like this. And that one person then pursues it; it requires a spirit of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship if anything is more important than high IQ. That person then gathers people, collaborators: one here who can do the mathematical model at a high level; another one there that can do the natural products, chemistry; another there who knows how to design the right computer programs to push the thing forward. And before long you have a group. But that's not the group that innovated. [They didn't] have the dream—that [came from] one person. You're right. And that's not going to disappear at all.
(Edward O. Wilson, discussing his book “The Social Conquest of Earth” at the Free Library of Philadelphia on 4/24/12, broadcast on C-SPAN2's Book TV.)
Tue Oct 02, 07:21:00 PM 2012 
 Jon said...
Richard,
At the risk of appearing equivocal, I would like to propose the notion that we are both correct.
Individuals are capable of greatness. Groups are capable of greatness.
Perhaps that is to the advantage of humanity. Everything cannot be achieved by individuals alone and everything cannot be achieved by groups working cooperatively. However, the achievements of both individuals and groups takes us forward in our development.
(Just don't let fuckwits who think that they are going to get a second chance in some imaginary after-life get hold of any launch codes, though.)
Tue Oct 02, 10:17:00 PM 2012 
 Richard said...
That will work.
Significant patches of land that supports centers of Islamic religio-political & military power should be abruptly turned to green glass that glows at night. Collateral death & injury is the fault of the saber-rattling, terrorist supporting, power mongers.
Wed Oct 03, 08:06:00 AM 2012 
 Chuck R said...
Richard & Jon:
Richard's quote from E.O. Wilson tells only half of Wilson's story.
From Pg. 243 "The Social Conquest of Earth" - "Nevertheless, an iron rule exists in genetic social evolution. It is that selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, while groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. The victory can never be complete; the balance of selection pressures cannot move to either extreme. If individual selection were to dominate, societies would dissolve. If group selection were to dominate, human groups would come to resemble ant colonies."
He makes that point throughout the book, and it shows why his book is "The SOCIAL Conquest of Earth", not the INDIVIDUAL conquest of Earth.
Competition among individuals for survival is found throughout the animal kingdom and is fundamental to evolution. Multi-level competition, wherein eusocial (altruistic, multi-generational, with division of labor) groups compete against other such groups is very rare, confined to humans and various lines of social insects. Nevertheless, the success of eusocial humans and insects demonstrates just how powerful a force altruistic group cooperation really is.
Humans evolved using multi-level natural selection: individual competition as well as eusocial competition among groups. These two methods cannot be comfortably reconciled. They caused humans to become a genetic chimera, evolving mechanisms promoting individual survival, and other mechanisms promoting group survival. From this arises the permanent existential angst of the human condition.
Wed Oct 03, 11:54:00 AM 2012 
 Richard said...
Hey Chuck, thanks for that. So E.O.W. thinks all that thinking and mutual collaboration are genetic things.
It takes only a little observation to see that we humans are born tabula rasa, and choose to collaborate or not based on our own judgments and knowledge.
Collaboration is teamwork, wherein every member is an independent thinking egoist, selfishly pursuing a common goal. Contrary to E.O.W. a good team is not altruist at all. Even military history bears this out: soldiers of the American Revolution fought the British with great selfishness, because they wanted freedom from The King of England. The British fought altruistically, for the sake of their King. America, the great experiment in individualism, was born. (Now much more than half of Americans have no clue what that means.)
So, E.O.W. is no individualist, & remains a genetic determinist, arguing as if individuals' minds & choices are superfluous elements in the greater game that is Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection. Again it is observable that quite the opposite is true: our flexible minds are the essential feature by which we have evolved beyond all other organisms in our ability to create the environment we need whether we are 11 km under the sea (Marianas Trench) to over 400 Km above the Earth in Space. Evolution did not think of Space Flight; all it did was enable a conscious, conceptual mind that could grasp the principles of Nature and put them to use for survival and happiness.
What is disregarded is the fact than even in a group collaboration, each idea that adds to the success of a project, still comes from a single individual mind, that grasps a solution where others did not. Nothing about collaboration is the result of collective thinking. There is no such thing.
Some amazing minds are able to grasp just enough of many sub-issues in a project to bring it forward better than would other minds. They did not fall back on the security & anonymity of The Group. Those amazing minds are the Steve Jobs, or early Bill Gates, or Edisons, etc. of humanity. Those three, and many others, collaborated with others, but that in no way detracts from their greatness, nor raises the others to their level. Their example of independent thinking and creativity, using the 'knowns' of their time, is something to aspire to.
Thu Oct 04, 07:33:00 PM 2012 
 Chuck R said...
Richard:
There are very few - if any - competent cognitive psychologists who still adhere to the "tabula rasa" viewpoint. That view began to fade away even before the fMRI information began to come in. Steven Pinker's book "The Blank Slate", published in 2002, was one of the nails in the tabula rasa coffin.
Sorry, Richard. About 30 years of cognitive science research has driven tabula rasa right off the field. There's really no point in addressing any of your other comments because your premise is fatally flawed.
Fri Oct 05, 05:05:00 PM 2012 
 Black Rose said...
Richard said to Saud: "Why did you pick that one example? The most decent reason would be that you really believe that that one verse is characteristic of the Qur'an. (But it is not.)"

BUT IT IS NOT!!!! You're right there Richard. This one verse in question by the blogger is NOT characteristic of the entire Quran... Just as the one he selected from the Bible is not characteristic of the entire Bible...Maybe you all should give the entire books a good read before commenting and showing off all your meaningless knowledge....
I observed that the comments/feedback started off objectively, and I see them getting more and more bigoted & straying from the topic as they go along.... and when anyone has talked about "context", you say "context is not the issue or concern".... FIRSTLY, If you can try to understand the PURPOSE behind the Quran (which is by no means to spread violence as many bigots have interpreted it), than maybe you will understand what its trying to say.... The Quran is not for the feeble to understand... In fact its interpreted by many a Muslim in the wrong manner too, hence illiterates who pursue terrorism in the name of Jihad (and no one has even bothered to find out what Jihad really is either)..though they pursue Jihad for reasons other than religion? A different agenda altogether, that is not going to be discussed here as its not even been considered..
Hence there is nothing to say that the Quran is lacking in its message (entire message).... Or that its a violent book (Sorry its not meant to be a bedtime story with quaint, peaceful stories of love, its a Holy Book with a purpose and a message!!)..As are the other Holy books.. Secondly, whats lacking is its proper interpretation... And that lets every bigot here to pounce on any given line & give responses via their fancy meaningless research, which has not provided any proof of anything so, just egotistic banter it seems... and therefore, as the Quran suggests - don't take it lightly, and keep discovering what you must on your own, even if that involves science.. if you 'truly' wish to understand.. PS - "Forgiveness" and "Tolerance" has been given precedence over any form of violence in Islam.. If some so-called Muslims are unable to heed to this - THEY do not represent the rest of the Muslim world, or even the religion for that matter!!! .... Treat them as individuals or a community with their own interpretation & go ahead hold hold them accountable for their individual deeds.... doesn't make the Quran or Bible violent books, just its interpreters..... sorry if i'm repeating anything, this box sucks! :)
Sun Jan 06, 02:40:00 PM 2013 
 Black Rose said...
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,========> The "punishment" is not to be delivered in this world or our lives.... its saying disbelievers will be lose grace in this world... but their punishment will be given in the hereafter.... jeez do you people read, or just have selective reading goggles on!?!?
Sun Jan 06, 02:51:00 PM 2013 
 Richard said...
But all your talk about the Quran as a "Holy Book" makes two errors.
The first is that there is no such thing as a "Holy" anything. To accept that there is, is to instantly toss aside rational judgment in favor of imaginary things told to you or written by others. Their urgent belief was never a reason for you to believe, even when you were a child! The supernatural is impossible, period!
Second, once one discards rational judgment on the scale of the entire Universe (Metaphysics), then they are going to toss aside rational judgment again, and again, in all sorts of topics (epistemology, ethics, politics, economics) as it may suit his/her feelings. They can even believe a man (just one, mind you) can hear the words of God, and be a prophet. That nonsense is extremely stupid yet billions, who would consider such a man doing that today to be a crackpot, fall for it when it was supposedly done by a man a millennium or two ago.
The Quran and the Bible are both nonsense, with snippets here and there that make some sense if taken out of context. In context those snippets are ruined. They can be abused in foolish or vicious ways, because they are ultimately not based in reality. You interpret them one way and swear you are right, and someone else interprets them another way and swears they are right.
Whether a person is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc. everyone who believes is just as absurd as Suzie.
Mon Jan 07, 08:36:00 PM 2013 
 Richard said...
Chuck R The researchers you refer to have a materialist view of consciousness, with zero grasp of how concepts are formed. I subscribe to the emergent perspective which is gaining academic traction with agonizing slowness.
While biological features influence tastes, and can indirectly lead a person to particular understandings, those understandings are not present in the neonatal mind.
Wed Jan 09, 08:15:00 PM 2013 
 Me said...
You guys are so sick, this blog is a complete tragety, the qur'an is obviously extremely cruel and evil, and the bible is not, you are just makingit seem that way, everyday muslims kill christians, and christians dont kill muslims!! the qur'an is PURE evil... i will repeat that my whpole life and al muslims are completely wrong and its a shame... muslims will go to hell, not by my choice or Gods, butthere own... this blog is so stupid and the people are so foolish..... may Jesus be with you..
Thu Jan 10, 03:27:00 PM 2013 
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 259   Newer› Newest» Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.





Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 01 April 2011The Quran made them do it.
Earlier today a mob in Afghanistan attacked a United Nations compound, killing at least 8 workers. Two of the victims were reportedly beheaded.
The crowd was reacting to a Quran burning on March 20th by a US fundamentalist Christian pastor named Terry Jones.
What would make people behave in this way, you wonder?
The book that Terry Jones burned. That's what.
Here is what the Quran says about beheading people.
I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment.Quran 8:12-13
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks ... if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. Quran 47:4
The mob was just doing what Allah told them to do in the Quran: to strike fear into the hearts of unbelievers by smiting their necks. (The news reports didn't say anything about smiting unbelievers' fingers.)
The whole thing has made me change my mind about Quran burning.
A while back I wrote a post entitled, "Don't burn the Quran. Read it." But a book that tells its followers to strike fear into the hearts of unbelievers by beheading them is a book that no one should read or respect.
Go ahead and burn the damned thing. The world would be much better without it.








Posted by Steve Wells at 4/01/2011 02:00:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
13 comments:
 psybermonkey said...
Simply ridiculous. Goes to show you that such violent conflicts aren't all about "politics."
I'm curious though, Steve, how would you respond to modern Muslims or others who claim that such verses in the Quran that promote violence upon the unbeliever only qualify during battle/war - as the verse on beheading seemed to suggest?
Or are they right and it's just a matter of whether the Muslim believes they are at war with the West or not?
Fri Apr 01, 02:39:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
psybermonkey,
Yeah, that's a good question. Does Allah want believers to behead all unbelievers, or just those that fought against Muhammad, or those that happen to live in a country that is fighting against Muslims, or those that oppose Allah and his messenger, or those that work for the UN, or those that write blogs that criticize the Quran, or what?
I have no idea. I just know that it's wrong to behead people. Since the Quran says otherwise, I know that Allah is not God and Muhammad is not a prophet.
Fri Apr 01, 03:35:00 PM 2011 
 Mark said...
It is unfortunate that those bastards don't react by just burning bibles.
Sat Apr 02, 09:43:00 AM 2011 
 nazani said...
My understanding is that Karzai informed the Afghans of the
Koran burning in the US. Given that there have been plenty of other outrages against Islam in the US, we should wonder why he needed to incite people against the US (or direct attention away from himself) at this particular time. I feel terribly sorry for what will happen to the women and children of Afghanistan, but I will not be sad when Karzai is beheaded.
Sat Apr 02, 01:19:00 PM 2011 
 Laura said...
"But a book that tells its followers to strike fear into the hearts of unbelievers by beheading them is a book that no one should read or respect."
I have no respect at all for such a book. But I did get a copy and have started to read it. I'm reading it because I want to see for myself exactly what's in it. When a muslim apologist tells me that Islam is "a religion of peace", I want to be able to cite chapter and verse to show that it isn't. I want to know what I'm talking about.
Sat Apr 02, 03:08:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
When a muslim apologist tells me that Islam is "a religion of peace", I want to be able to cite chapter and verse to show that it isn't. I want to know what I'm talking about.
Good point, Laura. I am torn between the two options. I'd like to have a Quran and burn it, too.
Maybe we should all get two copies. One to read and one to burn.
Sat Apr 02, 03:33:00 PM 2011 
 T. said...
Do not isolate the Quran in "promoting" violence. Take a good look at the Bible, both Old and New Testament - hundred of reference to violence: "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.-- Leviticus 31:15-19" Keep only the virgins?? Is this the Quran or the Bible?
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.-- Luke 19:27" Straight from the Bible.
Sat Apr 02, 11:26:00 PM 2011 
 T. said...
Hmmm, "blog owner approval". I'm taking bets on whether my response gets posted.
Sat Apr 02, 11:29:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
Er... T !
I *think* you'll this find this blog (ahem) HAS been critical of the bible - at least once or twice...
Sun Apr 03, 02:13:00 PM 2011 
 RaptorJesus said...
I think Mr. Sam Harris put their reactions the best.
"Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you." -Samm Harris
Smart guy! :)
Mon Apr 04, 01:31:00 PM 2011 
 No said...
You'd think that Terry Jones would read his own Bible but apparently he doesn't.
Mon Apr 04, 04:11:00 PM 2011 
 red_resin said...
No! Don't burn the Koran. Think of the trees!
Recycle it. That's good for the earth. And maybe the book can become a better one.
Wed Apr 06, 12:25:00 PM 2011 
 faisy wish said...
We can judge islam through accepting of islam by non muslims . If we analyze deeply after 100 years islam will spread world wide.
Prayer Time Apps
Wed Jul 24, 01:09:00 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
    
 31 May 2011The Egyptian military and the Bible agree: Sometimes virginity tests are necessary
Earlier this spring, the Egyptian military arrested women demonstrators in Tahrir Square and subjected them to "virginity tests." According to an Egyptian general, these tests were done for two reasons: 1) to prove that the Egyptian authorities didn't rape the women, and 2) to prove that the women were prostitutes.
And the test worked like a charm. All of the women failed the test, proving that they were prostitutes (since they were non-virgins) and that the authorities did not rape them (since you can't rape a woman who is not a virgin).


Since Egypt is a predominantly Muslim country, I thought I'd check to see if the Quran mentions virginity testing. It doesn't, so far as I can tell.
But the Bible does.
Here, for example, is how Moses told his military leaders to apply virginity tests on Midianite women. (God's 26th Killing)
Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore ... kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:14-18
I suspect that the test procedure was similar to the Egyptian military's, but the outcome was different. The Egyptians tortured, terrorized, and humiliated women prisoners; the Israelites killed those who failed the test and enslaved (and raped) those that passed.
The same test was used in Judges 21, where the non-Benjamite Israelites were looking for wives for the Benjamites after their unsuccessful God-inspired genocide attempt. (It's a long story, see here for the details.)
Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children ... utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh. Judges 21:10-12
And, of course, virginity testing is required whenever a woman gets married. If she passes (by providing "the tokens of her virginity"), she becomes the possession of her husband; if she fails, the men of her city stone her to death.
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
"Virginity tests" are a degrading form of torture that should be condemned by everyone, regardless of nationality or religious belief.
But how can a Bible believer condemn such tests when they are approved and promoted by the Bible?
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/31/2011 05:30:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
9 comments:
 RsD said...
But how can a Bible believer condemn such tests when they are approved and promoted by the Bible?
Hypocritically. Just they same way that a Bible believer uses that vile book for any "moral" purposes.
Tue May 31, 07:31:00 PM 2011 
 Darren Delgado said...
I think we both know what the answer would be. "Islam didn't have Jesus to come to Earth and tell everyone that the original laws were wrong, and that's why they still do these things."
Of course that leaves us with the mystery of why a merciful God would come up with those rules in the first place. And also the little problem of how sometimes Jesus says we SHOULD follow the Old Law, and other times he says we shouldn't.
But it's best not to think too much about these things.
Thu Jun 02, 01:37:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
I think you're right, Darren. Islam badly needs a New Testament and a new prophet. One that would say something like, "You have heard it said that a man should beat his wife if she disobeys him, but I say to you that a husband has no authority over his wife. Marriage is an equal partnership that is based on love alone."
Christians (and somehow Jews, for that matter) can and do ignore the Old Testament. Muslims are simply stuck with the Quran.
Still, if the Jews can (and do) ignore the Torah, couldn't Muslims ignore the Quran as well?
Thu Jun 02, 02:01:00 PM 2011 
 twillight said...
@Steve
No wonder jews do not follow the OT. They also have a newer holy book, called the Talmud.
Only a minor denomination of jews (called caraites) take only the Written Torah as their holy book, and they are dismissed - if not persecuted - by judaistic jews.
Thu Jun 02, 11:01:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
twillight,
It's true the Jews have the Talmud, but the Muslims have the hadith.
I guess the main difference is that the Talmud softens and moderates the extreme teaching of the Torah, while the hadith hardens and radicalizes the nasty bits in the Quran.
Fri Jun 03, 07:33:00 AM 2011 
 twillight said...
I don't know anything about some 'hadith' Steve, but "the Talmud softening the Torah" is simply not true.
The Talmud is more ridiculous, racist etc. then the OC - at least from what I've read from it while translating what I had time.
Fri Jun 03, 11:47:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
You're probably right about the Talmud, twillight. But if it is even worse than the OT, how come the Jews don't kill disobedient children, sabbath breakers, non-virgin brides, etc.? Are there any Jews out there who can explain this to us?
Fri Jun 03, 12:06:00 PM 2011 
 twillight said...
@Steve
Well, I'm no jew, but from what I've read it's probably corellated with the respect (in the meaning like in middle-age Japan) of their group, and the fear of / holy war with nonjews.
Also not a minor part of the Torah (wether the Written or the Oral Law) depends on the existence of The Temple, what currently is not.
PS: the nonvirgin part is probably solved by a) they take virgin wives b) the law only allows the possiblity of case, so if the husband don't care of it it isn't a problem?
Sat Jun 04, 12:36:00 AM 2011 
 nazani said...
They "tested" the women for virginity in the same way reporter Lara Logan was assaulted: they rammed their fingers up them. This is the same form of abuse that Arab women have complained about for years.
Wed Jun 15, 10:23:00 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
    
 26 May 2011Hasa Diga Eebowai!
To listen to the other songs in "The Book of Mormon" click here.
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/26/2011 04:43:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
2 comments:
 Muir Dragonne said...
hahaha! Oh wow. I'm definitely going to share this!
Fri May 27, 01:54:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
"Hasa Diga Eebowai!"
Good to know blasphemy in more than one language. :-)
I can see how some folks would be offended by this musical. ^__^
There was a review of this on NPR a couple days ago. The producer (Scott Rudin) was interviewed. There is an interesting story (at 6:30 in the audio) involving the grandson of the president of the mormon church in 1978, when the revelation came down that god had changed his mind about black people. The interview is at
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136685812/scott-rudin-on-book-of-mormon-and-edgy-humor
Steve Weeks
Fri May 27, 12:29:00 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 May 2011Zephaniah 1:2-3: After the Rapture (whenever that may be), God will kill every living thing
I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the LORD. I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea. Zephaniah 1:2-3
(You might not be able to tell just from reading it, but this passage shows God's concern for the environment and his attitude toward poverty and justice. That's why it is highlighted in both the Green Bible and the Poverty and Justice Bible.)
God is going to burn to death every living thing on earth, as he explains in Zephaniah 3:8 (which is also highlighted in the P&J Bible).
All the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
Christians aren't bothered by this, though, since it won't happen until after the Rapture. They'll be in heaven, while everyone and everything else is "devoured with the fire of [God's] jealousy."
So it all works out fine in the end. God's justice, concern for the environment, and his love for humanity will be clearly shown when he burns everyone and everything on earth (except the Bible-believers, of course).
That is why believers have been saying for nearly 2000 years, and still say today, "Come Lord Jesus!" They are looking forward to the day and the hour that Harold Camping tried to predict.
(Mr. Camping has a new date, by the way -- October 21, 2011.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/23/2011 05:37:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
10 comments:
 RaptorJesus said...
Sounds alot like when paul was writing. He was sure jesus was coming back really "soon" and the "time is a hand" then he had to change his tune and cover his butt with "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
Because he sadly realized that jesus was a false prophet and he was wrong but rather than admit to it he just makes up another lie. Classic :(
Mr. Camping was sure in his prediction before the fail "apocalypse", so sure enough to spend his alot of his money and time preaching his BS beforehand. Now he has to change his tune too! LOL Believers are so funny with their pseudo-science, I feel kinda bad for the ppl who got duped.
Tue May 24, 04:55:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Raptor Jesus,
What a stunningly accurate and thorough interpretation that isn't.
Tue May 24, 06:00:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Perhaps you should read Revelation 7:9-10, 14 where it plainly states that the chosen ones came out of the tribulation.
The word rapture appears nowhere in the Bible. People who believe in the rapture believe the body ascends to heaven, but 1 Corinthians 15:35-36, 44, 50 clearly states this is impossible.
Zephaniah 1:2-3 refers to the early part of King Josiah's reign which began in 659 B.C.E. in Judah, the capital city of Jerusalem. It was a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E. See verses 4-6.
The prophecy had some effect upon Josiah, who purged the land of false religion and became known for acts of kindness. (2 Chronicles 34:3, 14, 19, 33; 35:26) This brought a temporary restraint, but the sins of Josiah's grandfather, King Manasseh, who had filled Jerusalem with the blood of the innocent, was not forgiven by Jehovah and the destruction came. (2 Kings 24:3-4)
How you equate this with the rapture and future events in a literal burning of the trees is beyond me.
Tue May 24, 06:30:00 PM 2011 
 RaptorJesus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tue May 24, 07:10:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
You're right, Daystar. The word "rapture" doesn't appear in the Bible. But the idea does.
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." -- 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
(This is also the verse that you and the JWs use to "prove" that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are the same person.)
As for your statement, "How you equate this with the rapture and future events in a literal burning of the trees is beyond me." Well, maybe you haven't read the verses. Here is Zephaniah 1:2-3.
"I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the LORD. I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea."
God says he's going to kill everything on land, in the air, and in the sea. And then in Zephaniah 3:8 he says that the entire earth will be burned with the fire of his jealousy. That sounds like complete destruction to me.
A guy who believes that Jesus (who is really the Archangel Michael) returned in 1914 should be able to see how Bible believers could believe that Zephaniah 1:2-3 refers to the destruction of the world after the rapture.
Tue May 24, 08:08:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Keep in mind who Paul was addressing at 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. He wasn’t suggesting that we all die when we go to heaven. The meek shall inherit the earth and live forever upon it. Not heaven. God made the earth for man to inhabit, not heaven. Only a few, 144,000 - as the Jehovah’s Witnesses rightly point out - go to heaven. Those are who Paul is speaking of.
Tue May 24, 08:36:00 PM 2011 
 RaptorJesus said...
Daystar,
Why is my comment wrong, is the info not true? You give no counter argument to it at all, just rolled your eyes and called it dumb pretty much.
Paul (or the real author of 2nd Peter) went back on his word and so did Mr. Camping when they both realized they where wrong. 2nd Peter 3:4-5 is where you can find the "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years." where the writer Paul (or whoever) changed his mind.
There is a lot of evidence to say that 2nd peter is a forgery and shouldn't even be be in the bible, meaning that the other gospels who said "I will not tray", "The time is at hand", 'Surely I am coming soon'. All must be false then, because 2,000 years is not "quick" by any definition. Plus don't you think the guys (jesus and god) who invented night and day would know how long a days, weeks or a years time in relation to human's life spans? They are almighty and all knowing, right?
The predictions of jesus' return should have happened long ago in the 1 century, but he failed to do so just like all other dooms-day predictions.
In other words jesus is just another false prophet, similar to our dear Mr. Camping in all his failing glory.
Like I said before "Believers are so funny with their pseudo-science"
Tue May 24, 08:55:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Oh, so the JWs are right again, eh Daystar! (It's amazing how many bizarre and diagnostic doctrines you share with them -- since you're not one of them, that is.)
Paul wasn't talking to or about regular Christians in 1 Th.4:17 when he said, "we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." The "we" he was referring to is the 144,000 Jewish, male virgins of Rev.7:4 and 14:4.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Tue May 24, 09:56:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Raptor,
The apostles and disciples of Jesus didn't think that Jesus was coming back really soon, other than three days later when he actually did come back. So Paul wouldn't have had to cover his ass.
Peter wrote 2 Peter, just as 2 Peter 1:1 plainly states. Now, critics have two alleged reasons for disputing the authenticity of 2 Peter.
1. They say the style is different than the first letter.
2. They say it was “poorly attested in the Fathers.”
The variation in style may be due to the fact that the first letter was written through Silvanus (1 Peter 5:12) whereas the second was not.
As for canonicity the letter was a part of the Bible catalogue by numerous authorities before the Third Council of Carthage. Irenaeus, Cyril, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory, Philaster, Augustine ant then the Council itself.
Talk about pseudo-science . . . Just because your poor interpretation of the Bible leads you to believe that its writers thought of Jesus as coming back in their lifetime doesn’t make it true. See The Pathway Machine response to The Skeptics Annotated Bible, What The Bible Says About The End Of The World.
Wed May 25, 10:20:00 AM 2011 
 skanksta said...
Daystar,
I love your rants.
Tue May 31, 05:19:00 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
    
 20 May 2011Let the scoffing begin!
There shall come in the last days scoffers ... saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 2 Peter 3:3-4

Posted by Steve Wells at 5/20/2011 06:23:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
39 comments:
 Stephen said...
Let me be the first to add my scoffing! I wished everyone at work today a "Happy Rapture!", and since I've been bringing them up to speed on this since last September, I got lots of yucks and big grins.
However, there have been some disturbing reports in the news media about people who have stopped caring for their homes, saving for their kids' education or their own retirement.
I'm interested to see how all the duped followers of Harold Camping readjust to their new post-"rapture" lives. This is the sort of thing that keeps social workers in business.
See: http://www.latimes.com/la-me-rapture-20110521,0,1687317.story
Steve, I love your suggestion about the clothes. I may just set up a couple scenarios.
Steve Weeks
Fri May 20, 07:59:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
This is a tough day for Christians everywhere. Harold Camping has unwittingly called the bluff. It brought the whole rapture bullshit into the spotlight and it looks pretty ridiculous. I saw one guy being interviewed that had sold everything. Why?
I put the word out to my Christian friends on facebook to take a minute and sign their savings over to me, but so far no takers. The only people I know that are willing to talk about this are skeptics. I am guessing it is hugely embarrassing to the faithful.
Sat May 21, 11:40:00 AM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Dan,
The rapture is a fairly new apostate Christian teaching introduced by Darby. Not all Christians, especially outside of the United States, adhere to the teaching.
Sat May 21, 09:03:00 PM 2011 
 Laughing Monkey said...
Now that Camping has been revealed as a false prophet, and the bible in several books says that false prophets are to be killed, do you think any of these bible kooks will up and shoot Camping? Or maybe pelt him with stones so that he dies?
Sun May 22, 07:08:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Daystar said: "The rapture is a fairly new apostate Christian teaching."
Aren't all Christians apostates to you, Daystar? Unless, of course, they agree with you and the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But do they have to agree with you on everything? If they disagree that Jesus returned in 1914, for example, would that make them apostates? Or is the 1914 thing "a fairly new apostate Christian teaching?"
It's hard to tell the apostates from the true believers. I guess you need a carefully calibrated apostate meter.
Sun May 22, 08:22:00 AM 2011 
 Fatman said...
Anyone who adheres to the crap written in the Bible and builds his/her life around the idiotic principles of Christianity clearly has mental problems. A lot of them.
It is only normal that such persons also believe earnestly in the Rapture and the End of Days. There is no need to make further fun of them. You would not, after all, laugh at other mentally handicapped people... at least hope not.
Sun May 22, 04:56:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Steve,
Apostasy is translated from the Greek apostasia which comes from the verb aphistemi. It literally means to "stand away from." It is, not just being wrong, it is a desertion, abandonment or rebellion. In the classical sense it referred to political defection, and the Septuagint used it in this sense at Genesis 14:4, but in the Christian Greek sense it is applied primarily in a religious sense.
99% of Christians believe in apostate teachings. These teachings are not just wrong or doubtful, they have origins in mythology which is counter to God’s word. The immortal soul, hell, trinity, the cross, Easter and Christmas for example. The rapture is just wrong, but those who believe in it also adhere to those pagan teachings.
I don’t always agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in fact, I couldn’t be a JW, or even an anabaptized publisher because they ask three basic questions which I couldn’t answer to their satisfaction. They only removed all of the pagan nonsense from their teachings so we are alike in that way.
I don’t know why you are hung up on the 1914 thing Steve. I guess it is a JW issue for you. Neither the they or myself would consider disagreement with 1914 as apostate. I don’t even consider it relevant, but if you insist we can go toe to toe on that and you will lose. Let me know if that is what you want to do and I will waste my time with it just for fun.
Sun May 22, 05:59:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
I want to see you "go toe-to-toe" !
Mon May 23, 10:23:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
OK, now we're getting somewhere, Daystar!
Now we know that 99% of Christians are apostates. Still, since there are only 6 million or so JWs, that accounts for only 0.3% of the 2 billion Christians. Are there any other non-apostate Christians besides you and the JWs?
You say that the 1914 second coming of Jesus isn't relevant. Seem like it'd be kind of an important thing, if true. Almost as important as celebrating Mother's Day or (Jehovah forbid!) birthdays.
And what's this about JWs being allowed to question Jesus' 1914 return? Any JW that publicly questioned the governing body's teaching on that (or pretty much anything else) would be disfellowshipped. You're not applying the Theocratic War Strategy on me here, are you Daystar?
You say, "if you insist we can go toe to toe on that and you will lose."
OK, Daystar, that sounds like fun! Of course, I have nothing to say, no toe to smash, so to speak. You are the one that believes that Jesus returned in 1914. Now all you have to do is tell us why.
I'd wear some steel-toed boots if I were you.
Mon May 23, 10:55:00 AM 2011 
 Markus Arelius said...
I agree with the idea shared by others earlier that maybe Christians should cease making testable claims? It's just not their strong suit. Priests and pastors and Christian teachers are much better spending their time rattling off Scripture quotes and then interpreting them for application ineveryday 21st century American life with all of its "trials and tribulations" (which compared to the rest of the planet aren't tribulations at all). "Let us pray for a mortgage modification and a positive tax return."
I mean, that kind of stuff they're good at. The end of the world is way to complicated for them, and to think it started with failing to understand the curvature of the earth, international date lines and timezones, etc.
We shouldn't forget that Harold Camping said there was "no doubt at all" and that it was "most certainly going to end on May 21".
Since this is the USA, I sense multiple fraud lawsuits in his future. As for what is to be destroyed by October 21, perhaps it isn't the world after all, but rather Mr. Camping's own church and FamilyRadio organization?
It would be only fitting.
Mon May 23, 01:33:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Wait a minute... Daystar is a Jojoba's Witless? How 'bout those blood transfusions? I thank my stars that there aren't any of those around where I live now; in a town I lived in 20 years ago, they'd come knocking, usually with a child. The kid always looked embarrassed, which kept me from unloading a heap of scoffing.
Steve Weeks
***Steve, sorry if this is a duplicate. We had a lightning strike and power failure just as I pressed the "Publish" button. Late Rapture?***
Mon May 23, 05:45:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Markus,
You are an atheist without a clue and that is not at all unique.
Stephen,
No. I'm not, nor have I ever been, or ever will be a JW.
Tue May 24, 09:27:00 AM 2011 
 Daystar said...
Daniel 9:25 said it would be 69 "weeks" from the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah. 69 weeks amounts to 483 days. If you apply a day for a year as in Numbers 14:34 it would be 483 years.
The command to rebuild Jerusalem was given, by Artaxerxes, in 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2:1-8 and exactly 483 years later Jesus, anointed with the holy spirit, was baptized by John thus becoming the Messiah. (Luke 3:1-2, 21-23)
The 20th year of Artaxerxes reign can be ascertained by the death of his father and predecessor Xerxes in 475 B.C.E. and so Artaxerxes’ first regnal year would be 474, which is historically accepted. The 20th year would be 455 B.C.E.
At Daniel 4:10-37 a giant tree represents King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. At that time he was the most powerful human ruler. The nation of Israel was set up by Jehovah God, and was an earthly representation of Jehovah's rule. The kings of Judah were said to "sit upon Jehovah's throne." (1 Chronicles 29:23)
Jehovah’s rule was demonstrated to Nebuchadnezzar by the tree in his dream, which was cut down, symbolizing Nebuchadnezzar’s downfall. The stump of the tree was banded, preventing it from growing until the bands were removed. It also symbolized the end of the Judean line of Kings which had been Jehovah’s earthly representation in 607 B.C.E. when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. This began a period of time which Jesus would refer to as the "appointed time of the nations" or "gentiles." (Luke 21:24)
This would be a time when Jehovah God would have no earthly representative, no king - Zedekiah was the last, until the one who had the legal right to the throne as a representative of Jehovah God's Kingdom, Jesus Christ, would come. (Ezekiel 21:25-27)
Daniel 4:16 says this period of time would be "seven times." In Revelation 12:6, 14 it is seen that 1,260 days are equal to three and a half times. So a single time is equal to 360 days. Seven times, then, would be 2,520 days. Again, as above, a day for a year is applied (Numbers 14:34) and so, from 607 B.C.E. 2,520 years brings us to 1914. The year we can assume that Jesus began to rule.
Tue May 24, 01:22:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
OK, you're right, Daystar. It's perfectly obvious now. Jesus returned in 1914 and began to rule, which explains why everything has been so great since then.
69 weeks; a day for a year; seven times; 1260 days; a time, and times, and half a time; 2520 days; 607 BCE. It all adds up. The JWs are right. How could people not see?
Anyone who can't see this (that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914) deserves to be viciously destroyed by Jehovah God at Armageddon -- which will happen, of course, within the life of the generation that witnessed the 1914 non-event.
That's quite a toe-smashing story you've got there, Daystar!
Tue May 24, 07:28:00 PM 2011 
 O! said...
would be 474, which is historically accepted. The 20th year would be 455 B.C.E.
It’s also historically accepted in the majority of legitimate encyclopedias, and accredited universities (supported by reams of historical evidence) that Jerusalem fell @ 586 B.C.
http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/p/period2-2-1.htm
Let the lame rationalizations fly…………
Tue May 24, 07:37:00 PM 2011 
 Paweł Szulik said...
Dan said:
"This is a tough day for Christians everywhere"
Well, I am a Christian and I've been mocking Harold Camping's "prophecy" from the beginning. I also don't believe in a rapture. You really shouldn't identify all Christians' beliefs with those of Harold's congregation, since as I know most of denominations disagree with predicting a date of the end of the world.
Bible many times clearly states, that nobody knows a date of the end (even Jesus didn't know), so I don't really know how did it happen that Harold predicted a date from the Bible :-) A sad thing is that after such "excesses" some people discredit the Bible, in spite of the fact that it hasn't ever told a date of the end of the world.
Please, visit my blog: objectivelyannotatedbible.blogspot.com for some information, which could be interesting for you.
Wed May 25, 05:53:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
PS, you say you don't believe in the rapture and that you (like Jesus and the angels, unlike Jesus' dad, Daystar, and Harold Camping) don't know when Jesus will return. But you do think he'll return someday, don't you? ("Come Lord Jesus!" and all that.)
If so, what will happen when he sneaks back like a thief in the night? Will he cut people to pieces as he said he would in Matthew 24:51?
Wed May 25, 07:35:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Here is a short video about Daystar's 607 BCE / 1914 Jesus' return thing.
Wed May 25, 08:41:00 AM 2011 
 dhenson2011 said...
O!
I think the rationalizations have flown, you read in a book that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 rather than 607 B.C.E. so it must be true. Those silly Jewish historians that wrote the Bible knew nothing of Jerusalem.
But why, O! Why does secular history say that it was 586? Two not so good reasons. The Ptolemy’s Cannon and the VAT 4956. Bet you didn’t know that, did you. You just read that they said it was 586 so it must have been 586.
Here is the problem with Ptolemy’s Cannon and the VAT 4956.
Ptolemy's canon gives 87 years to the Babylonian dynasty. Nabopolassar 21 years, Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Evil-merodach 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years, and Nabonidus 17 years. Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year (or nineteenth accession year) would have been 586, however, Ptolemy's canon was prepared for astronomical rather than historical purpose. It gives neither a complete list of rulers of Babylon or Persia nor exact date of rule. Kings whose reigns were less than a year or didn't embrace the New Year's day were omitted.
Ptolemy has Evil-merodach with only two years rule while Polyhistor has him with 12 years. Ptolemy has only fife kings whereas a list found at Borsippa had a much longer list.
As Neugebauer and Weidner, who translated the VAT 4956 pointed out, the scribe simply changed words to conform to the abbreviated terminology common in his day, from the same source as Ptolemy. They share the same errors.
Attempts to support the accuracy of these questionable histories suggest that the 70 years of desolation were not 70 literal years, but as Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chap. 9, par. 7 point out "all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years."
You didn’t think secular history worked like that, did you? You didn’t realize the Bible is a far more accurate and reliable history, did you?
Wed May 25, 09:16:00 AM 2011 
 Paweł Szulik said...
Steve, you wrote:
PS, you say you don't believe in the rapture and...
Are the letters "PS" my i.e. Paweł Szulik's initials or do they mean Post Scriptum and apply to your previous debate with Daystar? Maybe it's a stupid question, but please make it clear, because I don't want to answer whilst I am not asked to.
Wed May 25, 09:20:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
dhenson2011,
What's with the sockpuppet thing, Daystar?
I guess you're like the unclean spirit in Mark 5:9. Your name is legion.
Wed May 25, 09:28:00 AM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
The Blog signs me in according to what Google account I happen to be on, so if I go to my Google webmasters tools I have to sign in as dhenson, if I go to my email I may sign in as Pathway Machine, and if I sign in directly here the blog only allows me to sign in as Daystar.
I have verified my PM account with the blog which seems to be having some difficulty, so I will try and make sure I'm signed in as PM.
Wed May 25, 09:50:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Yes, Pawell Szulik, my PS refers to you.
I was mostly just being lazy, I guess. But I often abbreviate names when they are difficult for me to spell or remember.
Wed May 25, 10:03:00 AM 2011 
 O! said...
dhenson,
…you read in a book that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 rather than 607 B.C.E. so it must be true…
Fallacious argument. You got your information from a book too.
You didn’t think secular history worked like that, did you? You didn’t realize the Bible is a far more accurate and reliable history, did you
I’ll stick to the general consensus and the secular historians like the ones at -- the positively inept—(sarcasm) Boston University – which I provided a link for, above. What’s your credible source?
You can stick to your historical book of fantasy, where men walk on water and fly, seas can be magically split, serpents and donkeys can talk, and a Jewish prophet can be resurrected, good as new, after being dead and buried for three days.
I also found this link revealing. http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/607-1914.php
Wed May 25, 04:26:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
O!
I myself have just pointed out the unreliability of your source, no matter who it is. You, on the other hand, can't do that with mine because mine is far superior.
Thu May 26, 10:00:00 AM 2011 
 O! said...
I myself have just pointed out the unreliability of your source, no matter who it is. You, on the other hand, can't do that with mine because mine is far superior.
So you say.
Yep, you shared your information and I shared mine – what was your source again?
And did you go to the last link I provided?
Thu May 26, 04:27:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
Paweł Szulik said...
Dan said:
"This is a tough day for Christians everywhere"
Well, I am a Christian and I've been mocking Harold Camping's "prophecy" from the beginning. I also don't believe in a rapture. You really shouldn't identify all Christians' beliefs with those of Harold's congregation, since as I know most of denominations disagree with predicting a date of the end of the world.
Bible many times clearly states, that nobody knows a date of the end (even Jesus didn't know), so I don't really know how did it happen that Harold predicted a date from the Bible :-) A sad thing is that after such "excesses" some people discredit the Bible, in spite of the fact that it hasn't ever told a date of the end of the world.
I also pointed out the following:
“It brought the whole rapture bullshit into the spotlight and it looks pretty ridiculous.”
Do you think it matters what you call the end of the world? The fact that it is justifiable to you because the scripture states that no man knows the hour shows me how far you have thought this through. Let me put it a different way. You mock Camping on two technicalities (what to call it and that no one knows) Otherwise you accept it because an ancient writer got it in his head to do a Tolkein event and call it holy.
I think the question about verifiable events is legit. To outsiders like myself it appears that Jesus teaches mercy as a way of life but in (potential) real life situations he becomes a killing machine. The great flood and the tribulation are perfect examples. It is like playing hide and seek with a child and when he finally finds you, you kill him. If that sounds harsh it’s because the message of these events is beyond anything Stalin or Hitler could have dreamed of. It is the annihilation of the human race for not agreeing with him. And when the event verifies that he is real it is too late everyone gets murdered. To Bad.
Fri May 27, 08:45:00 PM 2011 
 O! said...
Here’s a photo comic that perfectly illustrates what‘s being said by the reasonable people of this forum.
rapture comic
Sun May 29, 01:29:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
O!
No, I didn't read the link, did you? I'm afraid I don't have time to read every link given me as an argument, but if you would like to go over it here that would be okay.
Mon May 30, 07:02:00 AM 2011 
 O! said...
No, I didn't read the link
Of course not………….
...did you?
Yes, I did.
I'm afraid I don't have time to read every link given me as an argument,
Evidently, your information is far too superior to waste your precious time reading a link – yet you expect us to read your link in this post
Hmmmmmmm, does anyone else wonder why Path’s superior information hasn’t buckled the knees of secular historians and penetrated the legitimate encyclopedias and credited universities around the world?
I know Path will rationalize that secular historians are trying to protect their feeble understanding of history but it’s abundantly clear; path can’t penetrate the deep dark fog of religion as well as his superiority complex to even begin to realize he’s too deluded to recognize he’s living in a fantasy world – all the while clamoring on ”my info is more superior then yours”.
What was your source again?
Mon May 30, 12:41:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Wise move, O!
If you can't think for yourself it doesn't matter who your source is and its best to keep somewhat quiet.
Speaking of secular histories and fantasy worlds, though, how many secular historical records are there of Jesus Christ and how many of them are reliable?
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
How, do you think, Boston, the extant MSS of Caesar's Gallic War, the histories of Tacitus, Thucydides and Herodotus compare to the Bible?
Heres a hint. They don't.
Mon May 30, 04:50:00 PM 2011 
 O! said...
Curious as to why you’re keeping quiet about your source………
Notice Path’s tactic: diverge by opening a can of supposed historical worms, thereby relegating his source to the back of the room. Not to mention, turning a blind eye to the link I provided.
What’s your source again?
Mon May 30, 07:29:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
O!
Considering my adverse objection to the opiate of the masses which is ignorance in its many forms, accepted with great fanfare and little objection let us now reveal my source.
It is none other than the great Patrick. Patrick from the Spongebobsuarepance episodes.
So. Lets you and your Bostonian guise for intellectualism . . . treading upon the thin ice of the aforementioned superiority . . . take a close look at your fucking link, since you hadn't the sense to do.
Let Patrick show you the way which is not the way you can see.
In other words, notwithstanding your ignorance . . . lets fuck your source. You and I.
Still, if it isn't entirely clear, lets look at your link.
Mon May 30, 08:23:00 PM 2011 
 O! said...
Path
Yikes!
Not only are you delusional, you’re also bipolar.
Something strike a nerve?
Your reluctance to supply your source speaks volumes.
I grow tired of your evasiveness.
By all means have the last word; stoke your superiority complex.
You really have nothing to offer but morbid delusion.
I will not be back to read your latest ramblings.
You’re a pathetic lunatic
Tue May 31, 06:26:00 PM 2011 
 The Pathway Machine said...
Oooooo!
There’s the diagnosis! Any correspondence with idiot atheists always culminates in a medical diagnosis. Having worked in the pharmaceutical market I can safely say that the atheists are proud members of family planning as well as lots of drugs for lots of money for lots of kids and the elderly and anyone else that is annoying and needs to be snuffed out or can be bereaved of a profit.
That wouldn’t be your pretense in the world view, would it?! Oh, heavens no!
I’ll take your bi-polar disease and raise you an abortion, ignorant (husband of a bitch schoolteacher).
Did you know that, in addition to burning, or crushing the skull of a growing baby the filthy stinking fucked up cocksuckers that call themselves atheists also have cornered the market on drugs to do whatever they want, which is to dumb down the masses and goddamn the pusher man?
No matter. It wasn't a leap of the purist optimism that pushed your ignorant ass out of my way, it was an offer of, uh, the obvious.
This may cause seizures, abdominal pain, and blindness. Atheism. You are just going to have to live with that.
Now. That Jehovah God claimed, in a sense, the Witchtower as an exclusive representative of his earthly . . . representation . . . is pure nonsense. With this I agree. Though the Bostonians don't supply any real solid scriptural references to that effect isn't in itself surprising, because they are idiots, I know because I have worked with them in some sense, but hell, Stevie didn't know that.
It doesn't matter. With them on this point I agree. It is pretty obvious.
When people start claiming God is directing them in a post Christian sense it is time to get off the circuit and open up the wallets of the idiots. Invest in real estate, make stupid claims that doesn't matter if Steve Wells or Kent Steinhaug has no effect upon outside of the lawyers.
Doesn't matter. With this I agree.
Wed Jun 01, 09:22:00 PM 2011 
 Fatman said...
Pathway Machine,
Getting a bit lost here, are you?
Your response goes a long way to prove the fact that anyone living his/her life in accordance with a work of fiction is insane. Read your last post, man. It reeks of insanity.
Never mind your delusion that god exists, or belief in the Bible crap. Surely you can see how a mentally healthy individual would never write that?
Fri Jun 03, 08:18:00 AM 2011 
 Ritchie Annand said...
"Any correspondence with idiot atheists always culminates in a medical diagnosis"
Why does this remind me of that silly old joke "I've slept with hundreds of [men | women] and they were all LOUSY in bed."
To which the meek rejoinder is "Maybe it's you?"
Fri Jun 03, 12:23:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Pathway Machine said:
"Did you know that, in addition to burning, or crushing the skull of a growing baby the filthy stinking fucked up cocksuckers that call themselves atheists also have cornered the market on drugs to do whatever they want, which is to dumb down the masses and goddamn the pusher man?"
Seriously, you need to get back on your meds, my friend. I call myself an atheist, and none of this hyperbole applies to me or any of my atheist friends. What's more, I'll bet I'm happier than you are by just about any yardstick you could imagine. Nice reference to Steppenwolf, though. :-)
Steve Weeks
Fri Jun 03, 08:52:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
As an addendum to the whole "rapture" failure, I never did get the "Family Radio" rapture predicting bumper stickers I requested before the judgement. :-(
But I recently received a personal letter from Harold Camping! He wants to be my friend! And he needs money... :-/
Steve Weeks
Fri Jul 29, 07:38:00 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
    
 18 May 2011Zimri burns to death

Remember Zimri? The guy that killed Baasha’s wall-pissingfamily and friends for God? Well, now it’s his turn. What goes around, comes around – a lot in the Bible!

After Zimri killed Elah (Baasha’s son), he replaced him as king of Israel.
In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah to reign over Israel … And his servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him, as he was in Tirzah, drinking himself drunk ... And Zimri went in and smote him, and killed him … and reigned in his stead. 1 Kings 16.8-10
It didn’t last long though, just long enough to perform his mission from God.
As soon as he sat on his throne … 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. Thus did Zimri destroy all the house of Baasha, according to the word of the LORD. 16.11-12
A week later, the people of Israel chose Omri as king.
In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah. And the people … made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel. 16.15-16
And then, of course, Omri, along with everyone in Israel, went to pay Zimri a visit.
And Omri … and all Israel with him … beseiged Tirzah.  16.17
When Zimri saw Omri and “all Israel” attacking, he burned himself to death.
When Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the palace of the king's house, and burnt the king's house over him with fire, and died. 16.18
God was pleased with the way the whole thing turned out. Zimri burned to death for “doing evil in the sight of the Lord.”
For his sins which he sinned in doing evil in the sight of the LORD, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin. 16.18-19
The Bible doesn’t say what the evil was. The only thing that we know about Zimri is that he murdered Baasha’s son, Elah, and all of Baasha’s wall-pissing family and friends.

But that wasn’t evil, since God wanted them killed. So what was it?

Maybe Zimri had some golden calves in his closet or something.
God's next killing: The drought of Elijah
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/18/2011 10:58:00 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
    
 06 May 2011Take the Sam Harris challenge: Improve the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon in less than five minutes
The truth is that religion, as we speak of it (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), is based on the claim that God dictates certain books. He doesn't code software; he doesn't produce films; he doesn't score symphonies. He is an author. And this claim has achieved credibility because these works are so profound that they could not possibly have been written by human authors.
...
How difficult would it be to improve the Bible?
Anyone in this room could improve the supposedly inerrant text scientifically, historically, ethically, or spiritually in a moment.
OK, so let's try to improve the Bible. I'll start by suggesting that the following passage be deleted.
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
That's much better. A kind and loving God wouldn't tell us to kill our family and friends for disagreeing with us about religion.
What about the Quran? Could that be improved?
How about removing this verse?
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. Quran 4:34
There. Now men can't claim it's OK to beat their wives for being disobedient. That's quite an improvement, I'd say.
And now for the Book of Mormon.
I nominate the following verses for removal.
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. 2 Nephi 5:21-23
Now the LDS church doesn't have as much to be embarrassed about.
And now it's your turn. Spend a few minutes improving these three perfect books.
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/06/2011 05:44:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
51 comments:
 Jim Thompson said...
So just cut out all of the pages and insert:
Thomas Paine-- Common Sense
Hume's writings
etc.
Fri May 06, 06:24:00 PM 2011 
 ♥мєℓσ∂ια ∂є ¢нανєz♥ said...
Burn them all and replace them with Darwin's Origin of Species :D
Fri May 06, 06:54:00 PM 2011 
 uzza said...
I improved mine by running it through the shredder and using it for cat litter.
Fri May 06, 06:59:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
These highlights really demonstrate the negative slant of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible.
I hate this sort of thinking, especially from atheists.
Lets not stop at the Bible, and the ignorant lame assed interpretation of Sam Harris, lets paint Hitler and Stalin and Hiroshima with rosier colored glasses.
If God is the big bad Bogy man that propels idiots like Sam Harris to the forefront of the talk show circuit or You Tube for the sake of nothing more than making him and his ilk a bundle and giving purpose to more ignorance then fuck it. It is a bad joke.
You won't see Sam Harris and his wife sitting around trying to figure this shit out, you only see quasi intellectual xenophobia which subscribes to a knee jerk reaction to apostate Christendom.
You won't see these pricks debating the finer points of what is the soul, or hell.
They have an agenda that isn't any more informed or rational than the god they oppose out of pure ignorance.
They are boring and dull. Stupid. They want your money and they subscribe to the powerless. Boring. Stupid.
Fri May 06, 08:50:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
Cut out everything after,
"In the beginning there was void..!?"
Sat May 07, 04:53:00 AM 2011 
 Tony said...
Cut everything except "do unto others..."
Sat May 07, 05:38:00 AM 2011 
 Fuad Hasan said...
We can help allah to write a better Quran.
http://thebetterquran.com/
Sat May 07, 07:58:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded.
Quran 4:34
But... but... if you delete this, the women won't be required to wear their hijabs, and the men will be out of control. ^_^
Steve
Sat May 07, 08:09:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Sorry, Fuad,
You lost me when I read the following (under "The Women"):
Explicitly state "Do not hit her", or explicitly state to hit her lightly
New text:
1. Admonish them, refuse to share their beds, but do not beat them
2. Admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them lightly, not in the face, and do not bruise them
This is still unacceptably misogynistic. A "better" quran would contain proscriptions of *any* kind of physical or emotional abuse.
Steve
Sun May 08, 04:54:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Anyway, Allah isn't much of a god if he requires human help to write a better book.
Steve
Sun May 08, 04:55:00 AM 2011 
 Matthew Blanchette said...
Insert this verse into every holy book:
"People can love who they love, if each are consenting adults. Thou shalt not suffer a bigot who discriminates against sexuality, or race, or disability, or gender; he shall surely be shunned by the community, and taught better."
Mon May 09, 11:52:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
@ Matthew Blanchette: That's good, but there's a whole bunch that must be deleted as well, or your suggestion will appear in the "Contradictions" list on Skeptic's Annotated Holy Book.
Steve
Tue May 10, 08:12:00 AM 2011 
 trog69 said...
Daystar: I hate this sort of thinking, especially from atheists.
Aw gee, that's a shame,'cause we're not about to stop pointing out idiocy just because you made the mistake of basing your worldview on a book that is a mish-mash of ridiculous claims supposedly "inspired" by some divine god.
If God is the big bad Bogy man that propels idiots...
Um, no. See, what compels Mr. Harris, and me, to speak out against religion has nothing to do with a god we don't believe exists, but instead it's the adherents, like you, who are the problem. And, as more and more people see that your biblical assertions are nonsense, it becomes easier to understand why you are compelled to call us names and lash out as you do here. Too bad others are also seeing your nasty side, as it only makes you look even more silly, if that's possible.
Tue May 10, 01:49:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
trog69,
It isn't intellectually honest to delete the writings you don't agree with or, most likely, don't understand. The problem isn't with believers it is with ignorance. If you educate people the abuse of the book will subside somewhat. This isn't really the agenda of the militant atheist. The agenda of the militant atheist is to destroy the beliefs or world view that isn't in agreement with their own.
The idea that a reasonable man can stand in front of an audience and with straight face claim intellectual honesty in this way is laughable to everyone but the tiny minority of militant atheists who buy his books.
Tue May 10, 08:58:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
[b]Annand[/b] - Daystar: this is no exercise in history revisionism; your comparisons to making a hagiography to Hitler are ridiculous.
[b]Daystar[/b] - Well there is the intellectual argument. I’m still waiting for the honest one.
[b]Annand[/b] - Can you improve the Bible, Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon in terms of a modern consensus of human rights and morality: the answer is yes.
[b]Daystar[/b] - No it isn’t. First of all morality is subjective and therefore irrelevant. There is no practical, logical, reasonable or sensible explanation for atheism beyond the most basic definition of the word itself. There are theist and there are atheist. The two are only at odds regarding each of their utopian world views, both of which are unconnected to the fundamental teachings of the Bible.
Deleting or censoring passages in either of the books mentioned is revisionism based upon xenophobia. It is myopic and folly. If the God of the Bible killed people for idolatry then that is what it should read.
[b]Annand[/b] - It is a common claim that said books are the source of good moral standards. This can only be done in one of three ways:
1) Cherry-picking
2) Light "no longer applies" apologetics
3) Heavy "yes, this is ALL good" apologetics
[b]Daystar[/b] - The revisionism is based upon the first and weakest of these. And morality, once again, is subjective and irrelevant.
[b]Annand[/b] - William Lane Craig himself was recently defending the killing of the Canaanites with a nigh simplistics "the adults deserved it; the babies went to heaven; what's the problem?" approach.
Cherry-picking is arguably the most ignorant approach, but can be the most compatible with modern ethics, depending on the cherry-picker in question.
[b]Daystar[/b] - Whoever William Lane Craig is should be notified that long after the Canaanites were killed Jesus said no one had ascended to heaven except himself, who had descended from heaven. You don’t waste your time arguing the morality of the issue you argue the reality of the text.
[b]Annand[/b] - Turning things around, your raucous accusations of "ignorance" on the part of atheists seems to presuppose the existence of souls and hell:
"You won't see these pricks debating the finer points of what is the soul, or hell."
...AND?
[b]Daystar[/b] - And Hell doesn’t exist according to the Bible The soul is simply the life and the blood of any breathing creature.
[b]Ritchie[/b] - You're knee-deep in Emperor's Clothes territory here, to my mind. Souls presuppose dualism as true, and I will argue that dualism is unsupportable, through trite ('why is our brain bigger than that of a mouse?'), religious parallel ('why is the OT soul concomitant with the body, whereas only the NT soul is a separate dualistic Hellenized soul?') or research (neurology/parapsychology/etc.) argumentation.
[b]Daystar[/b] - Maybe it has something to do with the influence of the apostate Jews about the time of Alexander the Great when concept of the immortal soul began influence their thinking? I would say later the English word soul is an unhappy translation for both the Hebrew nephesh (ׁש) as well as the Greek psykhe (ψυχή) but I don’t care to debate it here, the point is that it doesn’t matter to an atheist, right?
[b]Ritchie[/b] - Do you simply maintain that because we do not agree with you and do not engage in presumptively-religion-as-true arguments that we must therefore be ignorant?
[b]Daystar[/b] - The conclusion is correct but the reasoning is off.
[b]Ritchie[/b] - Your invective is unsupported.
[b]Daystar[/b] - I disagree.
Wed May 11, 07:20:00 PM 2011 
 Fragged Mind said...
Just replace them all with Dawkin's Greatest Show On Earth, Sagan's Cosmos and Hawking's Brief Time in History.
Sat May 14, 03:06:00 AM 2011 
 Fragged Mind said...
@Daystar: I don't condone deletion. I condone pointing out how stupid it is to believe in such stupidity without evidence.
Sat May 14, 03:12:00 AM 2011 
 Artist Sean Seal said...
Where to begin? How about the beginning?
Just an "Author". Nice!
So... not an engineer, scientist, master builder, designer, architect, artist... need I go on?
Doesn't write computer code?
Who reading this wants to argue that the human brain is not the most magnificent and least understood device for processing information in the known universe? So maybe he's not a java developer. That's a pretty intolerant view. IMO
The only way any of us can even begin to put ourselves in a position to "improve on the bible" is to put GOD in a box first.
Even I have to admit I feel safer with him in there. Then I can just do what I want. Right?
Sat May 14, 06:21:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Blogger Artist Sean Seal said...
The only way any of us can even begin to put ourselves in a position to "improve on the bible" is to put GOD in a box first.
Heh... he has to EXIST before you can put him in the box!
Steve Weeks
Sat May 14, 12:08:00 PM 2011 
 prairienymph said...
I'd cut out almost everything but the book of Ruth. That is some nice protest literature for the value of women and 'foreigners'. Of course it was still written in that time when it was assumed women needed to marry and have babies to survive and non-Jews still had to become Jews. It was prolly pretty subversive.
Sat May 14, 07:14:00 PM 2011 
 srizals said...
Yeah, yeah, let's deal with the holy books and not with our daily lives. Besides, we aren't going anywhere. We
re nothing. Sure, being nothing that is going to end up nothing would surely fix the mind in the right direction of self-praise and self-worship. Now I'm totally convince in nothingness.
Google Harun Yahya and you'll find out that being nothing is not something. Dull is nothing compared to being nothing. Keep up the good work Steve. There's absolutely nothing I can say to convince you of your own nothingness. Please think of me when you're on the death bed and contact me from your nothingness. That would surely destroy my faith in nothingness.
Sun May 15, 05:38:00 AM 2011 
 srizals said...
Millions are dying, being displaced, conquered, destroyed by the one nation suppossed to be under God. Women are being used up like garbage, children as filth and men as gods. Wake up from your dream world, where does all the dead pornstars and killers of humans came from? Men of God? Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot's brains are no different than the deluded theists that believed their god as part of this puny little world. Come atheists. Let's dance.
Anthony Flew changed his mind. Bit a little too late to escape from the second layer of delusion, ended up believing the Great Creator of VY Canis Majoris, was just a moongod believed to be worshipped by Muslims.
Sun May 15, 05:46:00 AM 2011 
 srizals said...
Come on Steve, what happened to my other comment? Lack of courage in sharing shows a certain dwindling process is actually happening. Be a sport. Share it. Please. There, I said the magic word.
Sun May 15, 07:27:00 AM 2011 
 twillight said...
Seems @srizals is a little impatient... All you out there: Steve isn't sitting before the computer 24/7!
But back on @srizals: "holy books" are sadly everyday life even today. So we bother with 'em.
Btw, how comes believing everything equalls nothing (or to read your mind: not believing in the psychopatic Bible-god) to self-worshipping? You're not the first I hear this bullshit from, maybe the religious' mind is really this barking mad?
Now Harun Yahya, alias Adnan Oktar, alias Adnan Hoca alias Harun and Yahya (etc.) is a writer. He lives from writing and selling books. Oh, and the person is also creationist (= an idiot), conspiracy-theorist, and thinks buddhism worships gods (budhism is an atheistic religion).
Actually I don't find anything about him and nothingness-theory, but his idea that the creation is the work of Satan is interresting.
The end of the story is though, that his organisation (SRF) was signed illegal, closed down, and the persona was sentenced for 3 years prison.
That's your hero: the turkish Kent Hovind.


Oh, and how to improve the Bible? Put the note on the cover:
"Warining: This is a work of fiction. Do NOT take it literally!
Content advisor: Contains verses descriptive or advocating suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, sexual activity in a violent context, murder, morbid violence, use of drugs or alcohol, homosexuality, voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority figures, lawlessness and human rughts violations and attrocities.
Exposure warning: Exposure to contents for extended periods of time or during formative years in children may cause delusions, hallucinations, decrease cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and in extreme cases, pathological disorders, hatred, bigotry, violence including but not limited to fanaticism, murder and genocide."
Mon May 16, 06:27:00 AM 2011 
 Ritchie Annand said...
Daystar: this is no exercise in history revisionism; your comparisons to making a hagiography to Hitler are ridiculous.
Can you improve the Bible, Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon in terms of a modern consensus of human rights and morality: the answer is yes.
It is a common claim that said books are the source of good moral standards. This can only be done in one of three ways:
1) Cherry-picking
2) Light "no longer applies" apologetics
3) Heavy "yes, this is ALL good" apologetics
William Lane Craig himself was recently defending the killing of the Canaanites with a nigh simplistics "the adults deserved it; the babies went to heaven; what's the problem?" approach.
Cherry-picking is arguably the most ignorant approach, but can be the most compatible with modern ethics, depending on the cherry-picker in question.
Turning things around, your raucous accusations of "ignorance" on the part of atheists seems to presuppose the existence of souls and hell:
"You won't see these pricks debating the finer points of what is the soul, or hell."
...AND?
You're knee-deep in Emperor's Clothes territory here, to my mind. Souls presuppose dualism as true, and I will argue that dualism is unsupportable, through trite ('why is our brain bigger than that of a mouse?'), religious parallel ('why is the OT soul concomitant with the body, whereas only the NT soul is a separate dualistic Hellenized soul?') or research (neurology/parapsychology/etc.) argumentation.
Do you simply maintain that because we do not agree with you and do not engage in presumptively-religion-as-true arguments that we must therefore be ignorant?
Your invective is unsupported.
Mon May 16, 10:20:00 AM 2011 
 Ritchie Annand said...
srizals -> I think Blogger had a hiccup. I put in a comment, had it approved, came back to a big "Blogger is down" error message screen, and when it came back up, the comment was gone.
Mon May 16, 10:21:00 AM 2011 
 skanksta said...
Every single day, in every newspaper, pop-up, and radio station, we see and hear more amazing, more transcendent and more beautiful things, than can be found anywhere in these ancient books.
Todays, for example...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/dec/22/stem-cell-treamtent-sight-blind
Mon May 16, 04:30:00 PM 2011 
 Daystar said...
twillight called somebody an idiot! Now that's funny!!
Mon May 16, 05:09:00 PM 2011 
 srizals said...
Twilight, are you living in the twilight zone or something? Have you been missing the news for the couple of centuries? Let me give you some updates of this puny little earth we live on, ten of thousands of babies are still being aborted, by atheists and non-practising theists, the former being so fiercely in defending what began as a lie in the US. People are being killed and invaded by fancy scientific drones and bombs, not religiously made. And everyone has the tendency of annihilating one another not because of theists but atheists' favourite quote, 'survival of the fittest'.
Twilight, what's your opinion on abortion, same sex marriages and warmongering? Please share your worldviews. I need to know more the mind of practising atheist.
Doesn't it bother you that not one of the evolutionists ever countered Harun Yahya but merely rely on his character assassination, which is common when an idea or opinion is unbeatable?
Show me a fossil that proved evolution. And I'll show you living fossils that forgot to evolve and those which do not evolve to survive this very day. Isn't the theory of evolution always say that things evolve when the need arises?
Show me a research that proves something can exist from nothing without a creator. Show me a complex system without any controller. I'll wait for you here like a stone or like an audioslave.
Tell me why a killer that escapes earthly justice won't get punished ever. Tell me why criminals are being treated humanely while their victims suffered terribly in their hands.
Tue May 17, 09:13:00 AM 2011 
 twillight said...
@srizals
1) plz write names correctly.
2) What the *beep* you're talking about? What you told now simply has no connection to the previously said things!
3) Anyway:
Abortion is not killing any more then scratching your skin! Fetuses are NOT humans, they're only a bunch of cells.
"Survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with atheism, or abortion.
What the heck is a "practicing atheist"? It sounds like a "practicing non-stampcollector".
Btw, my opinion about abortion is this: The question is about responsibility. Do you have the adequate circumstances to rise up a child, or not? If the answer is no, then you should take the responsibility to execute an abortus if the pregnancy (or its possibility) could not be avoided (as there is no 100% protection you know).
Now my opinion about samsex-marriage (this is again only MY opinion, as the atheists has nothing in common by term with the exception of not believing in gods): Everyone shall have the right of happiness, therefor gay marriege should be allowed to not violate the Basic Human Rights. On the other hand I'd suggest to have a new term instead of marriage, as no procriation is expected from that kind of relationship (so by statistics this can help the government to plan the future population).
Now my opinion on war comes: I don't think "war" can only be fought with guns! Anyway, I'm towards the opinion as "war should be the last resort of diplomacy".
About Harun Y.: So according to your opinion if you don't meet someone, or even don't experience a certain fenomena by yourself, you should have no opinion on the subject? I say this view of yours is BULLSHIT.
Go into a *beep* museum you ignorant prick. ALL fossils proves evolution.
Now "living fossils" mean "things that have the look very similar to their more ancient form, but evolved to adapt to the current circumstances" (only this would be uncomfortable for everyday use). These circumstances can be things like changes in the atmosphere, pH, virulent agents etc.
And no, evolution doesn't say that "things evolve when the need arise". I don't know where you took this statement, but it is false. If you want a deeper explanation on this, send me a PM in the SAB's forum, or just ask a professional around your area.
Hm, something coming from nothing - let me see: in particle-accelerators scientists noticed "relativistic particles", where from "nothing" a matter and an antimatter-equivalent particle appeares. Anyway, as I know you refer to the origin of the universe question, I have to tell you, it is entirelly possible that the universe (in whatever state) existed forever, and it never not-existed. Now as I know that you even referred here more specifically the Big Bang scientific theory, I have to tell you that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily means the start of the universe! The theory says before the Big Bang a singularity existed, what is "something" and not "nothing".
Complex system without controller: please define "complex", "system" and "controller". But assuming we all have some common sense, let's mention weather.
In your last paragraph you ask phylosophy behind the currently used legal system, and the same time you forget about things like results of psyhology, the legal ways of killing (like being a soldier, or sentencing capital punishment - what I personally reject, but in many countries/states is in use), or something so basic that why should a finite crime result in infinte punishment?
Anyway, as you ask phylosophy, I refuse to react on the question. But I tell you 1 thing why this way is used: the question very much relates tothe question of capital punishment!
Tue May 17, 02:53:00 PM 2011 
 Fragged Mind said...
srizals said: " ...ten of thousands of babies are still being aborted, by atheists and non-practising theists, the former being so fiercely in defending what began as a lie in the US."
Citation SERIOUSLY needed. Also, a fetus is not a baby.
"People are being killed and invaded by fancy scientific drones and bombs, not religiously made."
Science makes the tools, those in charge decide how they are used, and those in charge tend to be deeply religious. I have a gun, the gun is a tool. Hypothetical situation: I kill someone. Is it the gun's fault that I killed someone or is it my fault?
"And everyone has the tendency of annihilating one another not because of theists but atheists' favourite quote, 'survival of the fittest'."
No...everyone has a tendency to kill each other over stupid things such as race, who they have sex with, resources, who's sky daddy is better, and about a thousand other factors including NOT GIVING A RAT'S BEHIND ABOUT ANYTHING INCLUDING THEMSELVES. It is not 'Survival of the Fittest' that is my favorite quote...mine is 'We are all connected. Biologically to each other, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.' Neil deGrasse Tyson
Survival of the Fittest isn't even the accurate evolutionary principle. It's Survival of the Adaptable.
Wed May 18, 02:39:00 AM 2011 
 srizals said...
Sorry, Twillight, and could you please avoid using intimidating words. Choice of words reflect intellect, don't you think so?
1. Abortion is self-culling and self-termination done only by the human species. No other species advocates this inhumane and in-creature practice except the intelligent man. For some theists, especially the ones that believed in singular and non-earthly bound god(s), created by them or exist around them, abortion is only allowed in a matter of life and death of the mother. It is never allowed for fun sake or due to lack of confidence and responsibility. Your point of view reflect self-centeredness and pure selfishness, sorry. Interestingly, you yourself are also a bunch of cells. In Islam, life is given to this bunch of cells when it is about four months old in the womb, which made it a person protected by law. Even before that, abortion is not allowed unless medical needs arise. Proof, it moves and responses to outside stimulus. Only living things do this. Dead cells do not. The innate desire to protect their offspring exists in all living things. Including those with deadly sharp teeth and claws. Although man does not have them, sometimes some can be deadlier and crueller than a hyena.
2. Safe and legal sex is the better option. Sex is legal and safe between a husband and a wife. Beyond this, deadly viruses will always lurk around the corner, waiting. These viruses do not approve immoral and unnatural sex by humans. Proof, HIV, STD, higher cancer risk among gays and no passing of genes by same sex marriages, in short, it is only an awkwardness, unnatural and a waste of energy. The only focus is selfish fun. Nothing more.
3. Same sex marriage is an act of suicide by a nation. It is again, only practised by smart man. Not animals and any other living things.
4. Fossils debunk evolution. No fossils ever found showing they are undergoing a process of transformation. Living fossils debunk the theory of time forcing creatures to evolve in order to survive or perfected themselves against the elements.
Wed May 18, 07:37:00 AM 2011 
 srizals said...
Read up the Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya in order for us to continue discussing. They are available for free on the internet. You don’t have to buy them. The Orang-utan is still an Orang-utan. It is under threat of extinction. Why didn’t it evolve and save itself as a species? Extinction shouldn’t have taken place if evolution is the answer for survival. If some failed while others succeeded in changing themselves, why is this happening? What rules governing them? Aren't rules sign of intelligence? Weren’t they in control of themselves?
5. Not everyone is a rocket scientist like you. I ask for a simple, down to earth sample. I ask again. If you do believe something can exist out of nothing without a creator which started the process or chain reaction in the first place, please give a simple example that I can use to speak to a 4-year-old about existence and life.
6. Big bang is not the beginning? Says who?
7. “A singularity existed”, do you mean God?
8. The weather is a controlled complex system. It is a result of cause and effect. It doesn’t exist or come to be on its own. Let’s find something closely related to us, shall we?
9. Capital punishment is an effective deterrent that keeps the criminal minds away from the not suspecting society, controlled with strict and rigid laws to safeguard it from malfunction. Only in Islam, the victims have a say in determining the punishment of criminals, forgiveness or enduring the same evil he had dared to inflict on other humans besides himself.
Twillight, water is ancient. It is said to exist immediately after the big bang which is the beginning of time and space as we know it in our still growing and limited knowledge. Only in the Koran mentioned about water as the essence of creation and life.
Coincidence? It was revealed about 1,400 years ago not by a scientist or a group of scientists with 21st century of scientific equipments and knowledge.
Anyway, what kind of atheism do you believe in? Were your parents atheists too? Thanks.
Wed May 18, 07:37:00 AM 2011 
 twillight said...
@srizals
I) I see copying is still not your strong point. It is "twillight", not anything else (even at the beggining of sentences if I may ask, but in the middle of a sentence without doubt!).
II) In your internet-program you have some kind of special character-restriction, or why you do double-posts?
III)
1. Actually many species use even more morbid way of "abortion". For example freshly hatched spiders eat each others. Kanguroos if chased hard throw away their babies to leave them behind for predators to be able to escape.
On the other hand abortion can be VERY humane in the human species, as for example one more child can mean the whole family will starve to death. And this example is just from the point of the individual. I mean: did you hear about OVERPOPULATION?
So abortion from a SECULAR point of view is not at all for "fun". Maybe you should read the answers people give to you!
2. I already told you: there is no 100% security. Also plz do not forget that for example catholics FORBID safe sex.
I start to see you're just copy-pasting preeching-material...
3. You are an ignorant prick. Homosexuality is very much common amongst animals. Ducks, cows - just to name the first 2 got into my mind. Not even start to explain sex-changing, hermafrodites, asexual reproduction...
Now I'm sure you're just copy-pasting preeching-material.
How about next time READ THE DAMN ANSWERS, and have some own toughts? I already gave answer to #4.
If you want to know what is the theory of evolution and how it works from the basics, I have to tell you, this is not the place you can have the info. I can suggest you some titles if you want to learn about the topic, but until you don't have even the most basic informations about this topic, please, leave me alone. To give you a hint: evolution is not about individuals. It is about descendency, so it is about groups. Compare your darn fossils (count in your own skeleton) you lazy one.
5. I gave an easy example. If you don't understand the topic you want to discuss, then don't try to pose on it!
6. Says those who made up the theory.
7. No. I mean a singularity.
8. EVERYTHING is a cause and effect. But it doesn't mean it has a sentient controller. As I said: I hope we all have common sense. Seems you do not have though.
9. capital punishment do not keep anyone away from anything. It is not effective.
Quran? The same shit that says sun orbits the flat earth?
You still not listen: there are no "kinds of atheism" for the same reason there are not wayS to not collect stamps.
My grandparents are religious, my parents are secular, and I'm atheistic. You want to date me or what?
Thu May 19, 02:46:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
@ twillight and srizals: While you guys are discussing abortion, don't overlook the fact that there are more "spontaneous" abortions than "induced". Assuming god is responsible for the spontaneous ones (he *is* omnipotent, after all), that makes him the greatest abortionist of all time. Just saying...
Steve
Thu May 19, 08:27:00 PM 2011 
 twillight said...
Thx Steve, you just remembered me also that the God of the Bible gave exact details to his followers how to execute abortion the proper way in Numbers 5.
Fri May 20, 06:42:00 AM 2011 
 skanksta said...
@szirals
You are most welcome to believe whatever you like in private.
However, you must be aware, that in public fora, people won't take you seriously when you dismiss the unifying theory of biology.
Thanks to what Darwin began in 1859, science can restore sight, create clones, map genomes, predict relationships, catch criminals, simulate blood groups and cure vile diseases.
You're welcome to prefer Hahun Yaya's miracles, but please accept that this will always be both a bizarre, minority position.
Fri May 20, 09:32:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Twillight said:
"...the God of the Bible gave exact details to his followers how to execute abortion the proper way in Numbers 5."
Help me out here... Numbers 5 looks to me like a magical technique for a jealous husband to detect his wife's extra-marital sexual activity, with the help of the priest and the lord, of course. Is the "bitter water that causeth the curse" meant to be an abortifacient?
I'm on the steep part of the biblical interpretation learning curve! ;-)
Steve Weeks
Fri May 20, 07:44:00 PM 2011 
 twillight said...
@Steve
Yes, it is magical ceremony, but let's check what it is supposed to do.
What happens is, that the jealous husband brings his wife to the priest, who makes her drink "bitter water". The result can be, according to the story:
- if the woman did not break the covenant: Num.5.28 "And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed."
The most descriptive here is the part "and shall conceive seed".
- So, when it says in case the woman broke the covenant: Num.5.27: "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."
we see two things happening 1) "her belly shall swell" - this means instant abortion (in the hungarian translation it is even more clear as instead of "belly" the word "womb" is used) 2) "her thigh shall rot" - this means she won't be able to "conceive seed" (= be pregnant) anymore.
Sat May 21, 12:04:00 AM 2011 
 srizals said...
Fragged mind, check out Roe vs. Wade. Can something based on lies survived? The answer is yes. twillight is a manisfestation of them. For them, a fetus is never a baby as long as it stays in the womb since their definition of right and wrong is not in hard solid writings and based on conscious. Their morality is purely scientific. They make things up as they move along. Manipulating facts to suit their needs. People that think an abortion is just like a scratch on the skin are liars. Look up the YouTube on abortion. It's gruesome. Be forewarned. Some people never witnessed a birth of a baby or sensing a moving baby in the womb by their hands separated only by layers of skin and tissues. How a baby kicks and shows his or her presence to the outside world, responding to voice and touch. For some, sex has no relationship with responsibility. For them, sex is just for selfish fun, nothing more, maybe much lesser. This is the problem with adjustable morality.
http://www.unbornintheusa.org/pages/P_roe.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/focus/30yearsroevwade.html
Reversing Roe: The Norma McCorvey Story (1 of 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQzdMv6nW4o
Sat May 21, 01:45:00 PM 2011 
 srizals said...
Mr./Mrs./ Miss twillight,
1. We acquire knowledge from others. It is known as shared knowledge. If it in tandem with our conscience and way of thinking, it becomes accepted knowledge. It is how you yourself come to being. So don't act like a pompous smartie pants, Mr. Sponge Bob.
2. Have you ever raised cows and ducks to claim homosexuality is common among them? Did you deliberately deprive them of opposite sex?
3. Since you cannot provide any other examples about how nothingness can produce existence, I have to accept it. Now explain to me how it became living, breathing, growing decision makers.
4. You said the Koran says the sun orbits the flat earth, prove it. I read and study the Koran on daily basis with short interval of times. Be forewarned.
Sat May 21, 02:02:00 PM 2011 
 srizals said...
Steve @ Stephen,
Your logic is similar to the likes that said God exists in them or they are a part of God since they were created by God.
Read up the term or definition of abortion. How could you even think logically that God is the greatest abortionist of all? Are you saying that men do not sin and error since they are programmed by God like brainless Zombies without conscience? Are you one of them? Do you honestly think that we are ill-equipped to deal with life?
Sat May 21, 02:08:00 PM 2011 
 srizals said...
Skanksta, denial is your weapon against the truth as you have so profoundly labelled the theists. It changes nothing. Back it up with something, at least.
Harun Yahya is not alone. There are many more Creationists as you put it throughout the World. Some know the True God. Others still considered men, animals, things as god(s). Hope they can realize how magnificent the biggest star known to man up to now. An earthly god(s) would just be a zarrah or an atom or smaller than it. How great an earthly god(s) can be?
Sat May 21, 02:29:00 PM 2011 
 twillight said...
@srizals
I wonder why Steve tolerates your flood.
Btw, abortion is allowed until the fetus grows a nerval system (I think the end of the first trimester), not until it is in the womb. See: no brain - no consciousness.
A question here: would you force the woman give birth to a brainless child? That is a known birth-defect, not at all endangering the mother who bears the embrio. Would you (at least try) keep that THING "alive" for decades?
If something is scientific it is: a) based on reason b) replicable c) unchanging.
Go into a slaughterhouse. It is gruesome (heck, making youghurt is gruesome! Not to mention fertilisaing ground, repairing sewersystems...). But our body requires eating delicious flesh!
And to be honest, the birth of a baby is gruesome. Anyone see it with own eyes can tell this.
The problem with unadjastable moral for example is this: let's say there is the rule do not kill. But when someone comes with an army it is most stupid to not fight back!
2. I and many did rise them, and noticed that behaviour. But the list goes forever, like dolphins, dogs, rabbits (heck, rabbits try to fuck almost anything with a hole) ... And again: there are things what complicate the juding of sexual attraction as mentioned above: bisexuality, sexchanging, hermaphroditism, asexual reproductions ...
On your other question: in cases of ducks and dolphins from the mentioned examples no, opposite sex were present. Also note that in natural circumstances samesex groups can appear.
3. I maybe could, but I'm not willing. And you still not understand the example.
Anyway, if we take things on a larger scales, take this hypothesis:
- at the very beggining there was nothing. Then relativistic particles appeared. As antimatter particles were more unstable, the amount of matter grew. By time we reach the moment of the BigBang, when the current state of the (our) universe came to be. The energy-matter when expanded cooled down, and with it appeared in more organised forms according to the laws of nature. Things continued this way, until at a certain time on Earth (too) some (or at least one) self-replicating molecule (most probably RNA) appeared and started to replicate itself. Every moment until that time, at that moment, and after that time was of course drived by the forces of nature: the kind of the particles, their position, the forces between them determined what will unavoidably happen. We call things containing the above mentioned selfrepicating molecules (on Earth according to our knowledge these can be: DNA, RNA, proteins) living things. These went on selfreplicating without any consciousness, and those offsrpings remained which could fit to the sorroundings. This continued for billions of years already until now, and will continue here, and probably elsewhere too (and if we turn really lucky we can be at that elsewhere too). If you ask consciousness at this point, let me point out that with more complex systems more complex forces arise. Consciousness as we commonly understand it is the result of the central nervous system, more exactly the brain. If you ask humans and animals, I have to tell you: there is only 1 major distinction in my opinion, and that is a minor easy difference in the way of thinking: humans can set appart the object and its attributes in the mind.
Now you asked the next question from Steve, but let me answer too: I have no knowledge about your idea of "God", therefor by your definition I AM "ill-equipped to deal with life". Or your god is evil. Or your god simply doesn't exist.
And lastly:
Error missing data: define "god".
Give tests to measure it.
PS: Science is one. Can you tell that about religion?
Sun May 22, 02:15:00 AM 2011 
 Paweł Szulik said...
Article reads:
The truth is that religion,
as we speak of it
(Islam, Christianity, Judaism),
is based on the claim
that God dictates certain books.
To start with, Paul's written in Second Timothy:
All scripture
is given
by inspiration of God
Paul stated that Scripture is inspired by God and not dictated by Him, and you must admit that's a HUGE difference.
Please, visit my blog: objectivelyannotatedbible.com. I've just started to write it, so have some indulgence on account of this.
I will soon make a post
"The Bible: God-inspired or God-given",
where I am going to explain many misconceptions in the subject of inspiration.
Sun May 22, 08:01:00 AM 2011 
 Fatman said...
srizals said:
"No other species advocates this inhumane and in-creature practice except the intelligent man."
Very well put and I agree. What follows from this statement is that anti-abortionists are idiots, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Harun Yahya's "attack" on the theory of evolution has been discredited by numerous scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and P. Myers. He is also credited with the statement that evolution is a feeble and perverted ideology "contradicted by the Quran", which is the "holy book" of Islam, a feeble, murderous and perverted ideology whose inane holy text mostly contradicts itself. Seeing as the Quran contradicts itself, then the fact that it contradicts the theory of evolution should not really matter much, even to the believers.
His expertise in zoology is questionable, not only because he has no credentials in that field (i.e. is a charlatan) but also because he exhibits fundamental ignorance of the divisions of species. A high-school student exhibiting the same level of ignorance in biology would fail the course. This "expert on zoology" fails to differentiate between an eel and a sea snake.
I don't see how this is character assassination - the man's claims have been proven wrong, and he lacks not only the academic credentials relevant to the subject matter (he is an architect) but also basic knowledge of zoology. If there is no character, there is nothing to assassinate.
This does not matter to the god-idiots, of course. They now have a prettily colored and very well illustrated "Atlas"; in what passes for the mind of a god-idiot, a pretty picture is (literally} worth a thousand words, as their minds have never grown past the coloring-book level.
Mr. Yahya also "proved" that the Holocaust was a lie and that the world is run by a secret Judeo-Masonic society. He also campaigned (with success) to promote government censorship. He is a nationalist and a religious zealot. Most importantly he is a charlatan and probably makes a wonderful living by selling his ludicrous texts to people whose mental health problems have caused them to believe in the existence of a deity.
As to the original post, you can improve all three books in less than a minute. You can use their pages as toilet paper (they already contain crap), or if you have poor insulation you can tear them out and stuff the pages into the cracks around your doors and windows. They certainly contain a lot of pages.
Sun May 22, 05:34:00 PM 2011 
 srizals said...
Fatman, you forgot, he's not merely using his own thought. He relied on the experts' views in their respected scientific fields. Some are evolutionists themselves. You didn't even bother to read/know things or knowledge that contradicts your basis of comparison. That surely shows something. At least he dares to read and oppose the other side with his well-prepared arguments. Some could just throw insults.
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/index.htm#
2. The only country that escaped NATO bombings while violating numerous international laws, practised apartheid unashamedly, repeatedly killing soldiering babies for tens of years (63 years), killing defenceless civilians glaringly and building a life like a leech on someone else's lands, blood and country is the so-called 'a secret Judeo-Masonic society' you thought had not existed. Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Soviet Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and countless more are immediately dealt with without any hesitations. Conspiracy, power flexing, natural selection or just mere chance?
Only Mossad can go on a killing spree anywhere on the face of this earth (besides predator drones), manipulating sovereign international passports while violating international laws without any worries. You have been sleeping all this while, haven't you? No wonder you have a very odd name.
Islamic empire collapse totally in 1918. The West took over. A thousand years of achievement in civilisation almost throughout the globe has since vanished. The influence in Science now shifted to the West after almost a thousand years in Muslim hands. Since then, the world was ridden with paper and plastic money, overwhelming debts just to make ends meet, deadly sexual diseases and never ending wars and death. Since then, people started to die like flies. The Japanese suffered a very highly scientific achievement that still threatens mankind with extinction and everyone is afraid of Islam. Everyone suffered scientific breakthrough in WMD. Dresden, Tokyo, My Lai, No Gun Ri, Fallujah and et cetera and et cetera. Trust me; the world won't disappear because of the said holy books. Ask the nuclear powers that have been stockpiling nuclear warheads and other WMDs enough for each, every one of us. Need I mention the remorseful scientists behind those scientific achievements?
Mon May 23, 08:12:00 AM 2011 
 srizals said...
God? Maybe Hawking’s words best describe Him, but he was referring to the Martians of course, 'we just need to look at ourselves in order to understand other life forms on other planet(s) we have yet to discover' or something like that. He was right in a way.
In knowing God, we just have to look at ourselves. We breathe the unseen air, colourless, odourless and tasteless. We breathe it in and out every second in our lives, taking it for granted. We see matters, some living, growing and building while others do not, and yet they exists around us and share some of our characteristics and yet we are totally different from them.
As creators ourselves, we would be annoyed if our creations are not treated rightfully, by others and especially by themselves. We wouldn't want our created complex and expensive cars, for example, to be bathing in the sea and running children down mercilessly on the road, while instigating other cars to do the same.
We would punish our complex cars ourselves for not appreciating our effort of creating them into existence in the first place and wasting themselves away in vain. We have given them the appropriate sensors to think, evaluate, re-think, try and error and make amends for them to grow, progress and benefiting one another. They shouldn't have taken our gift of existence to them for granted by disobeying and rebelling against us, their creators, the givers of everything they have and had. We would give them space and time to grow. We would warn them of course, the consequences of their treachery against us, their creators and sustainers. There, I used the 'talk to a 4-year-old' approach. Do you understand now, twillight?
Mon May 23, 08:52:00 AM 2011 
 twillight said...
@srizals
That turkish Kent Hovind didn't relied anything but his own buttocks. I've checked some of his material embedded to youtube, and it is nothing but bullshit, unbased assumptions (= bullshit) and mentioning religious terms (=bullshit).
So there is no "other side" to evolution.
Judaism has nothing to do with Freemasonry.
Freemasonry was actually a "university for everyone" in an age where nothing better existed (and people got bored from the nonworking religion), and currently it is nothing else then a golfclub with funny clothes.
And while many banker came from judaism, banking is just buissness. It is as much conspiracy as a condominium.
"Predator drones"? What's next, moles with pneumatic hammer? (Btw, have you heared about the recent assassination of Bin Laden by the USA? Oh yeah, I think Obama is a secretly transmutated israelite spy. I won't even try t tell the difference between israelites, jews and whatever the third word is in english for that topic.)
The islamic empires as you describe collapsed ca. 800-1200 CE, (around the end of the Dark Age, made by christianity) and the American and FarEastern empires florished independently from the European influence-area.
Your other words are also pure bullshit.
But know that everyone of course fear Islam (and other religions with the same dogma) for its holy war things.
So you say "martians" ARE a big HIM (they must be relatives os sponges then), and you call those absolutely normal, results of evolution beings "God"? Then I say thank you, end of the discussion.
Mon May 23, 02:19:00 PM 2011 
 srizals said...
As you say, twillight, as you say. If it makes you feel better. I hope you can see past the lies n hate. Hope you'll eventually be at peace, with yourself. You'll never be by hiding behind falsity, locking yourself in, afraid of comparing your truth with other truths. Which is the truest? That is the question, twillight. Compare and contrast. You'll get there, sooner or later, I hope.
As for the thousand years of glory that you have now, know this, you'll never take any of the glory in this world with you to your grave. We can only bring our good deeds with us to the grave. Hope you'll have offspring as your legacy on this fragile and dying earth. Good luck.
Tue May 24, 12:46:00 AM 2011 
 Fatman said...
srizals said:
"Fatman, you forgot, he's not merely using his own thought. He relied on the experts' views in their respected scientific fields. Some are evolutionists themselves."
No, he did not. The "argument" he presents against the theory of evolution is showing pictures of fossils and living beings side by side and saying they are "practically the same".
Plus he exhibits fundamental ignorance of zoology. Which is not surprising, as he has zero education in the field.
It would be like an accountant attempting to discuss heart surgery with trained surgeons - he demonstrates his ignorance and makes ludicrous statements.
But since God-lunatics never cared about facts and their limited intellect is stimulated not by logical thought but by pretty pictures, Yahya's book does a great job for these people.
Fri Jun 03, 08:25:00 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
    
 29 June 2011What the Bible says about Liberals (and why Todd Akin should become one)
Congressmen Todd Akin (R-MO) recently said this about liberals:
At the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God.
So I thought I'd check to see what the Bible says about them. Here's what I found.
God makes liberals fat.
The liberal soul shall be made fat. -- Proverbs 11:25
And since being fat is is sure sign of righteousness in the eyes of God, liberals are righteous people.
The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree ... they shall be fat and flourishing. -- Psalm 92:12-14
Liberals are not lying, churlish, vile, villainous hypocrites that steal from the poor and hungry. (Guess who that would be.)
The vile person shall be no more called liberal ... For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy ... to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words. -- Isaiah 32:5-7
Liberals distribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
For your liberal distribution ... unto all men ... Thanks be unto God. -- 2 Corinthians 9:13-15
And lastly, liberals devise and stand for liberal things.
The liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. -- Isaiah 32:8
God loves liberals. Todd Akin should become one. Then God would love him, too.
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/29/2011 08:27:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
31 comments:
 Rob said...
Clearly this didn't come from the Republican rewrite of the bible!
Wed Jun 29, 08:34:00 AM 2011 
 skepticmatt said...
Good call going with the KJV.
Wed Jun 29, 05:21:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
Talk about strange bedfellows, Steve your defending liberalism with a book that usually stands for the opposite of what you think? I personally think Christianity bears some of the blame for an entitled culture.
Without a true barter system we have removed ourselves from the effort it takes to produce food, clothing, and shelter to such an extent that the last couple generations think they should be given these things just because they exist. As in every publicly funded "good" someone has to pay for it, therein lies the disconnect.
We can thank Christianity and its emphasis on giving, for a culture that believes it can simply have what it believes is owed them. Now we are being led to believe that higher education, health care, and condoms should go on the free side of the ledger as well.
As a fiscal conservative I have gradually come to see liberalism and Christianity as cousins that feed at the same table; their plates are piled high with guilt. Thanks Steve, I have some more verses that back that up, verses I had no idea existed
Thu Jun 30, 06:39:00 AM 2011 
 Derek said...
Steve,
Your entire sarcastic argument falls apart because you are utilizing the fallacy of equivocation. You are equivocating the term "liberal" in reference to a person of a particular political leaning with the term "liberal" in reference to a person who is generous with their wealth and belongings. You are attempting to twist what the Bible says to mockingly make your point, but your "logic" utterly fails. You would be better off taking the time to stop and think clearly, producing a valid argument with valid premises and presenting that, rather than this foolishly deceptive and entirely worthless one.
Dan,
I disagree with your assessment that Christians are to blame for the state of our culture. I agree that Christians place a large emphasis on giving, but that in no way means that Christianity supports the idea that people automatically have the right to these things. The Church should provide services for the poor, providing food and shelter when it can, but these things are not privileges that every person is entitled to because they exist. The wealth of our country and the mindset that people are valuable, along with an entire list of other factors has lead to a government that thinks that providing for the unfortunate is its responsibility.
Christianity is in some ways responsible for this mindset, but I disagree that "its plate is piled high with guilt."
I also dislike the state we are in as a country, where we have people on welfare who feel it is their right to have food and shelter. I believe that all human life should be valued, but it is not the governments right or responsibility to provide people with these things, especially at the expense of the taxpayer. Giving should be a conscious choice, and having the government provide these things through welfare and other public aids disconnects us as individuals from the state and mindset of giving, and it disconnects the person receiving the gift from the humility it requires to accept a handout from another person. People should work and earn their living, and when they can't provide for themselves or their family I think it is the Church's responsibility to take them in and take care of them when it can, but it is not the government's responsibility or place to do so.
Thu Jun 30, 01:36:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Derek and Dan,
I'm not arguing anything here, I'm just saying what the Bible says about liberals. You don't have to agree with the Bible if you don't want to. (But for me, as a godless liberal, it's fun to agree with the Bible now and then.)
Thu Jun 30, 02:04:00 PM 2011 
 Derek said...
Steve,
The problem is, what you have presented is not what the Bible has to say about liberals, as I pointed out previously, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. The term "liberal" used in the Bible is not the same term you are using to describe your political leanings. They are not the same thing, so you are wrong when you say that you agree with the Bible, because the Bible is not saying what you are attempting to state that it says.
Sat Jul 02, 12:31:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
Steve this is forcing me to split up this comment:
Derek since Steve was just having some fun agreeing with the bible for a change, maybe you and I can discourse on Christianities contribution to the welfare system.
The largest part of human history involved developing societies to meet the two basic needs of shelter and hunger. It would follow that the strongest and fittest among these groups were able to meet these needs under the most difficult situations. The idea that there was leftover to feed the weaker members would have been foreign. The strong would have shared their resources with those closest genetically (their children first, then brothers, sisters, etc.) If you doubt this check out who is able to obtain basic resources when protective governments disappear. This system remained in tact through the feudal system in Europe, which rewarded the most powerful fighters with cities to overlord when they returned from war. It mattered little that they were highly skilled rapist, torturers and killers. Most of the revolts in Europe and Russia were sparked by a reaction to the injustices that the peasants were forced to survive under. In England the Archbishop of Canterbury was murdered because he stood up to this unjust system and called for reform.
Sat Jul 02, 04:25:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
Part 2
Anyway, Communism came out of the same yearning to escape the tyranny of the strong over the weak. It was corrupted by the idea that man would ultimately work for the common good if given the chance. It is possible that the seed of this thinking came from the Gospels and the book of Acts. In the end the idea that man would suddenly become altruistic if presented with the right environment goes against thousands of years of evolution. Not even Jesus could accomplish that. Since Jesus’ time man became more hostile to the idea of a godly kingdom of peace. The Catholic Church propagated itself by making examples of (evildoers) by skinning them alive, burning them with green wood that would smolder for days and torturing them until they pleaded to be burned alive. They would still be hard at it if it hadn't been for the enlightened thinkers that appeared on the scene. Many of the men and women who stood against the church and its power paid with their lives and still would be if enlightened thinking had not spread. Men like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would have been tortured and killed had it not been for the spread of enlightened thinking. Horrific consequences awaited a rational thinker that challenged any ordained practice of the church. One example would be that of bleeding a person if they were sick. If you stood against bleeding the Church needed simply label you as a witch and you were burned alive. It didn't matter if bleeding that person hastened their end or not, data did not count. The Church still has a strong distrust for science and data gathering.
What did enlightened thinkers give us that the church could not? Among other things, it gave us capitalism. No longer could a person claim ecclesiastical exemption. No longer could a person claim poverty through victimization. It was simple, if you didn't work you didn't eat. That is 180% in the opposite direction from Christianity. Jesus never held a job that we know of, never taught you should hold a job. (1) He told parables such as the prodigal son that made the hard worker in the family the villain. Eternal reward was by far more important then earthly reward. (The Mary and Martha story) (2) "Lay up treasure in heaven not on earth" Gold was viewed as something that is owned by (3) Caesar not his disciples. (4) Judas is considered evil for worrying about money and took the awful stuff to betray Jesus. I think it would be easier for me to come up with a top ten anti money slogans from the NT then you could ever come up with ten pro money slogans. Modern day faith teachers work overtime to convince their congregations that giving them money will generate wealth for the givers, after all (5) God loves a cheerful giver. The horrendous results of cultures that naively adopt communal type sharing based on first century Christians are legion. It is a dangerous premise to assume humans will look out for one another. They will only function fully when they are looking out for their own well being. In the end altruistic thinking will be the undoing of our culture. Capitalism has for some time been held in low esteem and much of that is generated from Christianity. Think about it just for a minute, isn't the person who gives their life to a charitable cause held in higher esteem then someone who builds a business and becomes wealthy? Dan>
Sat Jul 02, 04:27:00 PM 2011 
 Derek said...
Dan,
I was delighted to see this last comment! I will gladly engage in a discourse on this topic as best I can. I do not have the time this minute to do so, but within the next few days I will do some research and critical thinking about what you have said, and I will likely get back to you within a few days after this holiday weekend.
I look forward to mulling over your thoughts here, and will get back to you.
Blessings,
Derek
Sat Jul 02, 09:55:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
Derek,
Can you tell us what meaning of the word 'liberal' god ACTUALLY meant, when inspiring the bible ?
Sun Jul 03, 03:53:00 AM 2011 
 twillight said...
This was as fantastic that I almost went and checked if Steve not made it up himself.
Sun Jul 03, 12:21:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Yikes, Dan! It sounds like you are a true believer in the nastiest religion of all time: Ayn Rand Libertarianism.
Derek,
You say that the Bible isn't saying what I say it's saying. But all I've done is quote it and agree with what it says. You seem to disagree with the verses that I've quoted, which is fine with me. You don't have to agree with the Bible if you don't want to.
Maybe you should consider the religion of Ayn Rand. You seem like a guy that would enjoy devising wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words (Isaiah 32:7). I think there's a place for you in the churlish Tea Party.
Sun Jul 03, 02:00:00 PM 2011 
 Derek said...
Skansta,
Your sarcastic, (and I assume rhetorical) statement aside, it is not hard to understand what is meant by the word "liberal" in this passage (Proverbs 11:25). In the original Hebrew, the word is בְּרָכָה which is transliterated as berakah (pronounced ber-aw-kaw'). It basically translates as blessing, and in this passage
"Liberal soul" translates as "the soul that blesses," i. e., gives freely and fully. The term liberal in this passage in no way refers to the political leanings of certain individuals, and therefore in no way refers to a Liberal as Steve is deceptively attempting to equivocate it.
Steve,
as you can see, and as I have previously shown, the Bible is not using the term liberal in the same sense you are meaning it. You are quoting the Bible, but you are then ascribing a false definition of the term liberal to the Biblical passage, and therefore any agreement you are having with this false definition is meaningless. I do not disagree with the verses you have used, I disagree with your assessment of their meaning.
Sun Jul 03, 03:31:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
Steve, I can see why this part of my comment could be inspired by Rand:
"The horrendous results of cultures that naively adopt communal type sharing based on first century Christians are legion. It is a dangerous premise to assume humans will look out for one another. They will only function fully when they are looking out for their own well being."
Explain the part of that that compares to any religion you know of. Actually my primary inspiration is Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene".
Sun Jul 03, 03:37:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Dan,
So I was wrong about you being an Ayn Rand devotee. Sorry about that.
You say your views were inspired by Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene. Here's a quote from the book.
"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."
You seem uninterested in "nurturing pure, disinterested altruism" or in rebelling against the tyranny of your selfish replicators. Maybe you should look for another source for your claimed inspiration.
Sun Jul 03, 06:01:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
If you look closely at this statement it very powerfully makes my point. We shall see who wins...the code or positive thinking. It is possible that as the brain evolves we can change. I am willing to give it 30,000 years or so.
"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."
Sun Jul 03, 06:19:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
OK Dan, I guess I completely misunderstood you.
When you said, "In the end altruistic thinking will be the undoing of our culture," I thought you meant that you thought that altruistic thinking will be the undoing of our culture. But I guess not.
Because now you say that you agree with, and, in fact, are inspired by Dawkins when he says that we can (and should) nurture pure, disinterested altruism and, thereby, defy our selfish genes.
So I guess we all agree! Isn't it wonderful? I guess you're a godless liberal, too.
Sun Jul 03, 07:44:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
This has actually become entertaining, I look forward to how you are going to respond. It's like you totally ignore what I just wrote and continue where you left off on your previous one. That's OK though because you prefaced all this by saying "it's fun to agree with the Bible now and then." But seriously, this isn't about me, it's about whether an entire culture can group think their way out of thousands of years of evolution. It would be interesting to know how much hope Dawkins holds out for a society as a whole to overcome the code. Dan
Sun Jul 03, 08:37:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Yes, it is entertaining, isn't it Dan? Still, it would be even more fun if you would just say what you actually believe, rather than pretend that your views are inspired by Dawkins when they clearly are not.
But that's OK. Forget Dawkins and Rand. What was your point again? Something about the virtue of selfishness and raw, ruthless, unrestrained Capitalism, perhaps?
Sun Jul 03, 09:02:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
In your mind is it possible to individually make the "Dawkins decision" but be incapable as a culture?
In order to be clear, I am a proud capitalist and I can only assume your final comment was made to try and make me cower in a corner. This is often how capitalism is portrayed "selfishness and raw, ruthless, unrestrained Capitalism" I would change selfishness to "self interest" and if you think your local Mom and Pop stores that sell coffee and donuts are raw and ruthless then yes raw and ruthless it is. Dan
Sun Jul 03, 09:38:00 PM 2011 
 Derek said...
Dan,
you wrote, "It's like you totally ignore what I just wrote and continue where you left off on your previous one." in regards to Steve. I think I am inclined to agree with you, as I have written to Steve three times about his equivocation of the word Liberal from the Bible with the anachronistic definition he is trying to impose on the passage. I am not sure Steve is interested in truth. It seems to me he is only interested in being heard, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of what he is saying.
Mon Jul 04, 05:32:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Derek,
I think the Bible and I agree, more or less, on the meaning of the word "liberal". A liberal is a person who opposes vile people that speak villainy, work iniquity, practice hypocrisy, and devise wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words (Isaiah 32:5-7) -- that is, a liberal person is a person that opposes Tea Party Republicans and Ayn Rand Libertarians.
Are you an Isaiah 32 liberal, Derek?
Mon Jul 04, 07:53:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Dan,
I don't understand your question: "Is it possible to individually make the "Dawkins decision" but be incapable as a culture?"
Do you mean to say that you believe that each of us should try to revolt against our selfish genes by being as altruistic as possible, but that our society should encourage selfishness?
Mon Jul 04, 08:06:00 AM 2011 
 Dan said...
Steve, Prior to this conversation I naively thought you were above putting people into boxes and labeling them.
"Tea Party Republicans, Ayn Rand Libertarians, Isaiah 32 liberal," Also the sarcasm surprises me in that it squashes adult discourse in a big way.
Your question "Do you mean to say that you believe that each of us should try to revolt against our selfish genes by being as altruistic as possible, but that our society should encourage selfishness?" shows me you gave my concern some thought.
If our genetic code has been honed to a fine evolutionary state that enhances our survival, we are playing with suicide thinking we can suddenly reverse it. For example: If the majority of our evolution was based on eating meat and we thought it would be trendy to stop eating meat we could cause all hell to break loose in our physical structure. I would argue that the same could be said for our mental evolution. If as individuals or whole countries try to ban "acting in our own self interest" all hell could and has broken loose. You seem to think I am making some weird moral point that disagrees with Dawkins. I am not, the intent of his book was to point out that the gene is only interested in survival, it has no right or wrong and if something threatens survival it will over time change. He is hopeful that someday our mental evolution will be able to supersede the non-altruistic gene. That will only happen if it enhances our ability to survive as a specie. Otherwise our genes will change in some other way that will insure survival. Dawkins, Ayn Rand, Dan, Derek, Steve Wells, and Todd Akin can have their opinion, but the genetic code doesn't care. It adapts and changes endlessly and will continue to change long after we are gone.
To answer your question directly I think Dawkins was exercising his right to express some wishful thinking. I personally think we all live in a state of self interest even when we appear to be altruistic. If you see self interest as a good thing you see no reason to alter it.
Mon Jul 04, 09:11:00 AM 2011 
 Derek said...
Steve,
First, you must realize that the Bible passages you are quoting from were originally written in Hebrew. Just because the King James Version (read: translation) of the Bible uses the word liberal in both Proverbs 11:25 and Isaiah 32:5-7 does not mean that it is referring to what you are saying that it says.
Second, The Hebrew word that the KJV translates as liberal in each verse is different. see my previous posts for the meaning of the word in Proverbs. In Isaiah, the word translated as liberal is נדיב (naw-deeb)which properly means voluntary. In this sense it means a generous person (that is liberal with what they have) and hence refers to a magnanimous person.
Third, even if you don't know Hebrew, by simply looking up this verse in another translation that more accurately uses modern words to translate what the Bible says, you would see that Isaiah 32:5-7 in the New International Version reads:
5 No longer will the fool be called noble
nor the scoundrel be highly respected.
6 For fools speak folly,
their hearts are bent on evil:
They practice ungodliness
and spread error concerning the LORD;
the hungry they leave empty
and from the thirsty they withhold water.
7 Scoundrels use wicked methods,
they make up evil schemes
to destroy the poor with lies,
even when the plea of the needy is just.
Fourth, you are still equivocating different uses of the same word. a political liberal is one who favors proposals for reform, is open to new ideas for progress, and is tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. The term liberal that you are equivocating it with is liberal in the sense of a person who gives freely; a generous person.
Mon Jul 04, 12:54:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
@ Derek:
"Giving should be a conscious choice, and having the government provide these things through welfare and other public aids disconnects us as individuals from the state and mindset of giving, and it disconnects the person receiving the gift from the humility it requires to accept a handout from another person."
That's right. People should feel humility (read "shame") when they accept aid. Having the government acting as an intermediary also deprives the donor of that smug feeling of superiority that would normally occur, especially if a church were involved. ;-)
Steve Weeks
Sun Jul 10, 06:46:00 AM 2011 
 Derek said...
Steve,
Shame and humility are not the same thing, nor do they mean the same thing. It is wrong for you to try and equate them, and it is even worse that you attempt to make it seem that my statement equates them. To give to others for the right reasons takes just as much humility as it takes to receive from others. When I reference the state and mindset of giving, what I mean is a state of humility, and a mindset of altruism. I do not think that a person giving because they want to appear better than others is the right reason to be given, and is condemned by God, the Church, and myself. If a person, whether secular or religious gives to others in order to acquire a smug sense of superiority, they are giving for the wrong reasons and are morally wrong for doing so. Jesus Christ condemned that kind of giving in Luke 21:1-4. In this passage Jesus says that a widow who gives a tiny monetary amount of money has given more than all the other men who were giving much larger monetary amounts, because she was giving out of her poverty in humility. He condemned the smug self-righteous attitude in the pharisees, (who were the religious leaders of Jesus' day) so I believe He would condemn such behavior in those who claim to follow him today. Just because some people who claim to follow Christ give with this attitude so doesn't mean that having a self-righteous attitude is acceptable or encouraged by the Church.
Sun Jul 10, 12:44:00 PM 2011 
 Aquaria said...
Keep talking, christarders. You're making sure everyone gets a good look at what selfish, greedy, hateful, bigoted and amoral pigs you are.
Sun Aug 14, 06:20:00 PM 2011 
 servant sam said...
I disagree with your interpretion of what the bible is saying. You need to read the entire chapters 11 & 12 to understand what the Author, God is saying thru Solomon. We see that he is showing examples of opposites. Just about every text has or is followed by a text which shows the opposite, so that one can deliniated good from bad, acceptable behavior from none acceptable behavior. In the text you quote, "The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered", the liberal soul shall be made fat is referring to one who works for himself, to make himself fat. When it says he that watereth shall be watered it talks of the same philosophy that Jesus Christ shared the night before the crisifixion when the greatest of them are they that share or make themselves the least. So those who serve the most, will themselves be served.
I am but a servant of the King of Kings, do not go by what my interpretation is, but what God's word and meaning is.
As for whether or not the right or the left is the problem, the bible clearly states that the world will become as in the days of Noah, where men could no longer discern right from wrong. I believe we are in those days and that both sides are in darkness.
God bless and keep you all my brothers and sisters, and defend the faith.
Sat Oct 15, 05:10:00 AM 2011 
 servant sam said...
I hope Todd that you do not judge Christ by those who claim to follow Him. Many who claim to be Christians do not understand that the God we claim to serve is a loving God and not one who argues or debates in anger.
Even though I disagree with your interpretation if I follow Christ I still show love to the one who has that belief, for it is not my job to judge only love. It was Jesus who left us a summation of all His 10 Commandments when He said, that we love God with all our hearts and minds, and our neighbor as ourselves. Too many false prophets and false Christians today. Please do not judge my King because of thier ignorance of the character of the one they claim to serve. In the end God/Jesus is the only authority of the universe, so quibbling about the crumbs is so futile.
God bless and keep you all, and give you the Light of His love. Amen and Amen
Sat Oct 15, 05:19:00 AM 2011 
 Mike Allen said...
my NKJV doesn't use the word liberal. Ya need to stay away from the "new bibles". They are not good references when it comes to blasphemy of GODs' Word.
Sun Aug 05, 03:28:00 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
    
 28 June 2011A Mormon just believes.
Have you noticed the Mormon reaction to the Tony-winning Broadway musical The Book of Mormon? Probably not. There wasn't much of one.
Mormons haven't tried to defend themselves by claiming that it got things wrong. And that is because it didn't. Mormons believe what The Book of Mormon claims they do.
Take the song, I Believe, for example. Here are some of the lyrics.
I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America.
That is a fair summary of entire Book of Mormon. Ancient Jews sailed to America and separated into two groups: one "fair and delightsome" to God, the other evil and dark-skinned. (God darkened their skin to punish them for their disbelief and to discourage intermarriage with the white folk.) The dark-skinned Jews killed off all their white relatives and thereby became the ancestors of today's Native Americans.

I believe that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people.
Here is what God said in 1949 through the First Presidency under George Albert Smith:
The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."
And here is what God said after changing his mind in 1978:
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the church may receive the Holy Priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that follows there from, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
You can read all about it in chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham.

And I believe that the garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.
This one is less clear to me, but there's no doubt about it among Mormons.
Here is the secret code left by Joseph Smith identifying Independence, Missouri in Jackson County as the original Garden of Eden. (Mormons believe "the center place" to be the Garden of Eden. You'll just have to trust them on that.)
Hearken, O ye elders of my church, sayeth the Lord your God, who have assembled yourselves together, according to my commandments, in this land, which is the land of Missouri, which is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of saints.
Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion.
Thus saith the Lord your God, if you will receive wisdom here is wisdom. Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; a a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the court-house. -- Doctrine and Covenants 57:1-3
Richard Bushman, the Howard W. Hunter Visiting Professor of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University in California, claims that "The Book of Mormon is like looking into a fun-house mirror; the reflection is hilarious but not really you."
But it is you, Dr. Bushman. It is you, and all Mormons like you, that believe the things you believe. You may not recognize yourself, since you've never looked at your beliefs in a flat mirror before. But your beliefs are bat-shit crazy, as anyone viewing them from the outside knows immediately.
And you seem to understand it, too, when you say this about The Book of Mormon:
I suppose it seems obvious to many people that a moment’s reflection about personal planets, Kolob, and the Garden of Eden in Missouri will plant doubts. Any rational person in the modern world who thinks about such outlandish ideas for one second will see they are preposterous. Mormons can’t think about their faith; they must “just believe.”
I agree with you here. It is obvious to any rational person after a moment's reflection that Mormon beliefs about personal planets, Kolob, the Missouri Garden of Eden are preposterous. Mormons can't think rationally about their faith; they must just believe.
And as long as they just believe, we will just laugh at them.
If Mormons don't like people laughing at them for believing stupid things, they should stop believing stupid things.
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/28/2011 04:12:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
11 comments:
 Stephen said...
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Oh, wait... Joseph Smith did. :-/
Steve Weeks
Thu Jun 30, 11:07:00 AM 2011 
 Matthew Blanchette said...
Indeed... it's all pretend; that's what's so fun about dissecting all of it -- it's a game of Spot the Bullshit, and it's all bullshit. :-D
Thu Jun 30, 05:19:00 PM 2011 
 Richard T said...
If a politician swallows the twaddle that is Mormonism, would not that make him or her ineligible for any office because of their mental inadequacy?
Sat Jul 02, 07:36:00 AM 2011 
 Unknown said...
The Book of Mormon changed my life, and I would not be a christian without it.
If someone really wants to learn about the Book of Mormon, they should read the book itself and not depend on blog entries. Here is a better summary of the book: http://mormon.org/book-of-mormon/
The Book of Mormon is also a modern miracle. There were three first-hand witnesses (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris) who also were visited by the same angel that showed Joseph Smith where the golden plates were buried. These witnesses also saw the golden plates for themselves, and all three heard the voice of God declare that it was translated by the gift and power of God (through Joseph Smith).
Their account is found here:
http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng
(scroll down a bit until the paragraph "The Testimony of the Three Witnesses"
Sun Jul 03, 05:50:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
@ Unknown...
See my first comment above. ;-)
I can't wait until the first high school performance of "The Book of Mormon". In Salt Lake City.
Steve Weeks
Wed Jul 06, 08:32:00 PM 2011 
 k9_kaos said...
I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
anagrams to
The oblate devil bollocks dangle into a vile ape.
Somehow, that makes more sense.
Fri Jul 08, 02:08:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
"Blogger k9_kaos said...
I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
anagrams to
The oblate devil bollocks dangle into a vile ape."
Thank Moroni I had my keyboard protector on, or you'd owe me a new laptop! ^_^
I interpret your anagram as the devil teabagging the vile ape. :-D
Steve Weeks
Sun Jul 10, 07:01:00 AM 2011 
 atheistdad said...
Interesting that the one comment in defense of the Book of Mormon is anonymous. I have read the Book of Mormon, many times, actually, as most Mormons are supposed to. But there's no doubt that it's a fabrication.
I love the Book of Mormon Musical, by the way. I've been hooked on the songs and listening to a song or two nearly everyday since the album came out. The musicianship and lyrics are just excellent.
Love the blog, Steve!
Kevin Zimmerman
Iowa
Sun Jul 10, 11:04:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Here's a source for your mormon-wear needs:
http://xmormondrinkingteam.com/site/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=23&category_id=6&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26
I saw this shirt on a guy at the airport yesterday. :-)
Steve Weeks
Wed Jul 27, 03:51:00 PM 2011 
 Aquaria said...
I read the Book of Mormon and laughed my ass off all the way through.
That people believe that steaming turd of stupid just blows my mind.
DUMBEST myth book ever.
And that's saying something, considering that the babble was written by bronze age goatherders.
Sun Aug 14, 06:24:00 PM 2011 
 Tayler Smith said...
people say that about the bible all the time...
Fri Apr 19, 10:24:00 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.
















































Ungodly News





























































Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.




 
Home


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)








 















About Me
My Photo Michael Crowley 

 View my complete profile
 



 
 

Ungodly Links!
Freedom From Religion Foundation
 



Simple template. Powered by Blogger.
 




   











































Ungodly News





























































Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.




 
Home


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)








 















About Me
My Photo Michael Crowley 

 View my complete profile
 



 
 

Ungodly Links!
Freedom From Religion Foundation
 



Simple template. Powered by Blogger.
 




   
Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 13 July 2011The Bible's solution to the debt crisis: First Timothy 5 - 6
Republicans and Democrats just can't seem to find a solution to the debt crisis. That's because they are ignoring what the Bible has to say about it. Because the perfect compromise can be found in 1 Timothy 5 and 6.
Chapter 5 should please the Republicans.
The author (I'll call him "Paul" since that's who he claimed to be, though he probably wasn't) explains precisely who should, and who should not, be helped. His focus was on widows, but the same principles could be applied to all.
The first thing Paul does is distinguish between "widows indeed" and other types of widows. Widows indeed (true widows) should be honored (given public assistance).
Honour widows that are widows indeed. 1 Timothy 5:3
But which widows are "widows indeed?"
Paul has a list of ten requirements. A widow is a widow indeed if she:
Has no living children or nephews. (If the widow has any living children or nephews, it is their responsibility to take care of her.)
But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents. 1 Timothy 5:4
Is desolate, trusts in God, and prays all the time.
Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. 1 Timothy 5:5
Is not living in pleasure.
(A widow living in pleasure is the living dead.)
But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. 1 Timothy 5:6
Is over 60 years old.
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old. 1 Timothy 5:9a
Had only one husband.
(A woman who has buried two husbands wouldn't qualify.)
Having been the wife of one man. 1 Timothy 5:9b
Has raised children.
(No barren or selfish, childless women need apply.)
If she have brought up children. 1 Timothy 5:10
Has lodged strangers.
If she have lodged strangers. 1 Timothy 5:10
Has washed the saints' feet.
If she have washed the saints' feet. 1 Timothy 5:10
Has relieved the afflicted.
If she have relieved the afflicted. 1 Timothy 5:10
Has diligently followed every good work.
If she have diligently followed every good work. 1 Timothy 5:10
Applying Paul's rules for widows would greatly reduce the number of widows that would qualify for public assistance. The same approach when extended to all seniors would result in the 1 Timothy 5 plan for Medicare -- which is the Paul Ryan plan. (No medicare at all.)
The money that is saved from the 1 Timothy 5/Paul (the Apostle) Ryan Medicare Plan could be applied to reducing the deficit -- or (more likely) giving tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations ("the job creators"). The "public assistance for job creators" plan should easily pass the House. I think it already has.
And now for the Democratic Plan.
It can stated in just two verses from 1 Timothy 6.
Charge them that are rich ... that they be ... ready to distribute. 1 Timothy 6:17-18
OK, never mind. Screw the compromise. Let's just go with 1 Timothy 6 plan. (If we can stay away from the first two verses, that is.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/13/2011 07:54:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
3 comments:
 bakerjd99 said...
I could get behind the Timothy plan. It makes more sense than Obama's null plan. I realize you are poking fun at ideas like "God won't be mocked." Hypothetical entities don't care about mockery. Unfortunately arithmetic will not be mocked! Eventually our delusional government finances will be brought into balance one way or the other. A default might be the only way our inept ruling class will learn some basic economics.
Sat Jul 16, 04:00:00 PM 2011 
 nazani said...
I don't think they'll go to this extreme. More likely they'll just step up the anti-vaccination campaign (or defund the CDC) and wait for a flu to cull the number of people who get entitlements.
Sun Jul 24, 08:28:00 AM 2011 
 Andy Breeden said...
Yet another reason 1st Timothy is the worst book in the New Testament.
Mon Jul 25, 12:53:00 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
    
 03 July 2011What the Bible says about the Republican Primary
It should be easy for Republicans to select a candidate for president.
Just let God do it for them.
The only problem with that is this: God has already endorsed several, if not all, of the candidates.
Fortunately, the Bible has a foolproof procedure guaranteed to work even when God can't make up his own mind. It's called a lottery.
That's how God selected the first king of Israel. Here's how it worked.
God told the people to present themselves to him by tribe and clan ("thousands").
Samuel called the people together unto the LORD ... And said unto the children of Israel, Thus saith the LORD ... present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands. 1 Samuel 10:17-19
Then a tribe was selected by lot. (Benjamin had the lucky number.)
And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was taken. 1 Samuel 10:20
Next, a clan was selected. (Matri)
When he had caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families, the family of Matri was taken. 1 Samuel 10:21a
And the king was selected from the clan. (Saul)
And Saul the son of Kish was taken. 1 Samuel 10:21b
But Shucks! When they looked, they couldn't find him.
When they sought him, he could not be found. 1 Samuel 10:21c
So they asked God what to do and God said that Saul was hiding in the stuff.
Therefore they enquired of the LORD further, if the man should yet come thither. And the LORD answered, Behold he hath hid himself among the stuff. 1 Samuel 10:22
And sure enough, they found Saul hiding in the stuff. He was hard to miss since he stood head and shoulders above everyone in Israel. (He was also the best-looking.)
And they ran and fetched him thence: and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward. 1 Samuel 10:23
It all worked out great in the end. God chose the best (tallest, best-looking) candidate and all the people shouted, "God save the king."
And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the LORD hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king. 1 Samuel 10:24
Well, except for a few "children of Belial" (RINOs) who complained about it a bit.
But the children of Belial said, How shall this man save us? And they despised him. 1 Samuel 10:27
So there you have it. No need for expensive campaigns, debates, caucuses, straw polls, primaries, or nominating conventions. God's party should select its candidate God's way: by lottery. (Either that or just choose the tallest, best looking candidate. It should work out the same.)
(By the way, this isn't the only time a lottery was used in the Bible to select an important candidate. Matthias was selected by lottery to replace Judas, who died by spilling his guts out and hanging himself.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/03/2011 04:06:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
4 comments:
 twillight said...
If I remember correctly, the Talmud says all those important lotteries were rigged. Just telling.
Sun Jul 03, 10:10:00 PM 2011 
 montegoldrush said...
I don't like it! This method would clearly eliminate Palin and Bachman and I was so looking forward to the possibility of them running together. Think about it...cat fights in the White House, halter top photo-ops every 15 seconds, children hangin' about...lots and lots of children! What fun!
Mon Jul 04, 06:23:00 AM 2011 
 teavee said...
But God does make up, actually shows, his mind through lotteries, Prov 16:33 . But it's not so foolproof considering what happened with Saul. God might regret it and then deny regretting it. 1Sam 15:11, 29 , 35 .
Mon Jul 04, 09:55:00 AM 2011 
 tsukany said...
Does your logic mean that the Democrats are above the lottery as described in the Bible, with candidates not approved by God; therefore, Democrats are un-godly?
Mon Oct 10, 04:36:00 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
    
 30 August 2011Michele Bachmann's favorite Bible story: Jonathan and his gay companion slaughter the entire Philistine army
No, not that gay companion, silly. Not David. Jonathan's other gay companion.
Here's Ms. Bachmann's version of the story. (It starts at 4:30.)

And here's what really happened according to the Bible (1 Samuel 14:1-14).
(As always, be sure to read the Brick Testament story.)
One day Jonathan and his armor bearer decided to go find some uncircumcised guys to kill. Who knows? Maybe God would help them.
Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armour, Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the LORD will work for us. 1 Samuel 14:6
Jonathan's amorous armor bearer said to him, "Do whatever is in your heart. Whatever is in your heart is in my heart, too." (They had a very close, intimate relationship.)

So Jonathan told him his plan. They will go over to the Philistines and if they say, "Wait there and we'll come over to you," then Jonathan and his armor bearer will stay put. But if the Philistines say, "Come up to us, and we will show you something," then they will attack, knowing that God will help kill them.
Then said Jonathan, Behold, we will pass over unto these men, and we will discover ourselves unto them. If they say thus unto us, Tarry until we come to you; then we will stand still in our place, and will not go up unto them. But if they say thus, Come up unto us; then we will go up: for the LORD hath delivered them into our hand: and this shall be a sign unto us. 1 Samuel 14:8-10
So they did that. And when the Philistines saw them, they said, "Look the Hebrews have crawled out of the holes they were hiding in."
And both of them discovered themselves unto the garrison of the Philistines: and the Philistines said, Behold, the Hebrews come forth out of the holes where they had hid themselves. 1 Samuel 14:11
And then the Philistines said the magic words of doom, "Come on up and we'll show you a thing or two."
And the men of the garrison answered Jonathan and his armourbearer, and said, Come up to us, and we will shew you a thing. 1 Samuel 14:12a
When Jonathan heard that, he told his partner that God would help them kill the Philistines.
And Jonathan said unto his armourbearer, Come up after me: for the LORD hath delivered them into the hand of Israel. 1 Samuel 14:12b
So they crawled out of their hole and began to kill Philistines.
And Jonathan climbed up upon his hands and upon his feet, and his armourbearer after him: and they fell before Jonathan; and his armourbearer slew after him. 1 Samuel 14:12
They killed about 20 of them, all in an area of half an acre or so. Which is not too bad for a very first slaughter.
And that first slaughter, which Jonathan and his armourbearer made, was about twenty men, within as it were an half acre of land, which a yoke of oxen might plow. 1 Samuel 14:14
But it is quite different from Ms. Bachmann's story. In her version, Jonathan and his friend kill the entire Philistine army, not just 20 guys in a half-acre.
Here's what she says (6:30 in the video).
And what was amazing is that Jonathan and his compatriot soldier took the entire army down. ... That's what God is looking for today.
But she was sort of right. After the 1/2 acre slaughter, God sent an earthquake and then he forced the Philistines to kill each other.
And there was trembling ... and the earth quaked: so it was a very great trembling. ... The multitude melted away, and they went on beating down one another ... Every man's sword was against his fellow. 1 Samuel 14:15-20
I guess the point is the same, though. God wants us to kill uncircumcised people (Muslims, Catholics, Democrats, old people, the poor, etc.). He will do it himself if he has to, but he'd like our help. Otherwise he'll have to send earthquakes and hurricanes and then force us all to kill each other. And you wouldn't want that to happen, would you?
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/30/2011 11:05:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
8 comments:
 Matthew Blanchette said...
I don't want to watch that; I'm afraid the crazy might get inside my head... :-S
That being said, there is an extraordinary amount of homoeroticism in a book that explicitly sentences gay couplings to the death penalty, no?
Tue Aug 30, 08:32:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
It really is heartbreaking that The Land of the Free, of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and John Adams....
WTF is wrong with your politics America ?!?
:(
Wed Aug 31, 03:07:00 AM 2011 
 skanksta said...
Keep up the ridicule Steve, but what's REALLY sad is, that this may not even hurt her electorally !
In Europe this would kill a political career stone dead.
Wed Aug 31, 03:08:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
This woman is **bat-shit** crazy. I would expect to hear this sort of rambling from a homeless person pan-handling on the street. That someone who professes to be qualified to lead the United States can behave this way in public is disturbing indeed.
Steve Weeks
Wed Aug 31, 04:11:00 AM 2011 
 JustJoeP said...
@Matthew B - hypocrisy and secret trysts (straight or not) are rampant throughout the old testament.
@Steven - M.B. is a plentiful source of guano. Shoot'em-Up-Hypocrite- Perry is stealing all of M.B's spotlight and oxygen. My hope is the right continues to be a circular firing squad and they run multiple Tea Party, Libertarian, and Secessionist (Texas) candidates.
Wed Aug 31, 12:18:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
I HOPE this situation is a bit like that faced the British Labour (socialist) party in the 80s.
They had a committed hardcore of voters, but disappeared up their own arse, by repeatedly choosing WAY off the wall, unelectable leaders, until they basically, (after 14 years out of office) gave up socialism and came up with some sharp-suited candidates that could win elections - Tony Blair.
I'm hoping anyway, is this hope justified ?
Thu Sep 01, 04:52:00 PM 2011 
 Jinn Foxx said...
Reminds of playing World of Warcraft, actually. I mean David and his boyfriend slaying Philistines (they must have all been NPCs), not Michele Bachmann.
Thu Sep 01, 07:14:00 PM 2011 
 Bukko Canukko said...
I have an unQuranic quibble with your inclusion of Muslims amongst the uncircumcised minions that MMiicchheelee Bakkkhmann's gay warriors are ordered to kill. Getting snipped is almost as much of a tradition for them as it is for Jews. And that link is from an ANTI-circumcision webshite (sic), so you know it must be true. What brought this to mind is a recollection from a news story I read during the Yugoslav civil war about how murderous Serbs would look at the gear of Bosnians to see who had been clipped, so they'd know who they were going to cap.
Sun Sep 11, 04:05:00 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
    
 18 August 2011Doug Wilson quotes Ezekiel 23:20 (NSFW)
"Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts." Ezekiel 23:19-21
Is that pornographic? Did we really need to know how the Assyrians were hung, and how they ejaculated? Well, apparently God thinks so. Every word is profitable, right? Doug Wilson: On Being a Tricky Dancer
Pastor Doug quoted this pornographic passage from Ezekiel to defend a guy named Mark Driscoll, who is the featured speaker at next month's Christ Church conference, right here in Moscow, Idaho.
You see, Mark Driscoll "sees things."
Jesus shows him X-rated movies of people in his congregation having sex.
Here, I'll let MD tell you about it.

But, hey, Doug says, if God can talk about donkey dicks and horse-like splooge in Ezekiel 23:20 (for no apparent reason), then Mark Driscoll can talk about his dirty movies at the Christ Church conference.
You can register for the conference here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian New Wire: Sexpert Pastor Mark Driscoll is Told, 'Enough is Enough'
Pyromaniacs: Pornographic Divination
Pyromaniacs: Let's not dance around the real issue
The Christian World View - Mark Driscoll: Is He Qualified To Lead?
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/18/2011 01:09:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
7 comments:
 NFQ said...
WHAT.
Mark Driscoll is such a weird, weird dude. Never ceases to amaze.
It's always the people who moralize at the top of their lungs about gendered and sexual behavior who have really complicated sexual stuff going on in their own heads. Maybe Pastor Mark needs to deal with his constant visualization of everybody in his church getting raped and molested, work out what that says about himself, before he goes on lecturing about what a good Christian man ought to be like.
Also, who are these molesters who, when asked by an apparently ignorant victim decades later, say, "Yep, I molested you"?
Thu Aug 18, 01:48:00 PM 2011 
 curious cuber said...
The really vile thing about this is that, because all rational people realize this guy is completely lying through his teeth, the detailed descriptions of the stories (that he created) attest to his mental deficiencies.
Thu Aug 18, 02:30:00 PM 2011 
 Tosis said...
"Hey Grandpa, my preacher wanted me to ask you if you molested me when I was a kid."
"Yep, sure did. Thought you'd be too young to remember."
"K. Thanks."
Sun Aug 21, 12:13:00 AM 2011 
 nazani said...
I enjoyed the click-through to Christian New Wire, which in turn featured a link to the site Christian Nymphos.
Sun Aug 21, 09:22:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Ooooh! The "Gift of Discernment".. I wants it, Precious!
What a douchebag.
Steve Weeks
Tue Aug 23, 04:15:00 AM 2011 
 starcrashx said...
He's not "coming out with this publically" because He'd be on TV all the time??? How did I view him talking about this if it was so private?
And why wouldn't he want to PROVE God's existence by lending it such substantial weight as a paranormal ability? Why not take James Randi up on his offer of $1 million?
It's shameful that a Christian would lie so blatantly.
Tue Aug 23, 10:54:00 AM 2011 
 skanksta said...
lol @ Tosis :)
Tue Aug 30, 02:10:00 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
    
 13 August 2011Those who agree with Michele Bachmann shouldn't vote for her.
Here's why.
It all has to do with the question that Byron York asked Michele Bachmann at the debate last Thursday night.
In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea, and then you explained: "But the Lord said, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husband." As president, would you be submissive to your husband?
It was a surprisingly fair and balanced question for a debate sponsored by Fox News.
Ms. Bachmann didn't answer the question, of course. Instead she said that she respected her husband and was proud of their 28 kids.
And yet she believes she should be submissive to her husband in everything, as though he were God himself. She believes this because she believes in the Bible and the Bible says exactly that.
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18
Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands. 1 Peter 3:1
Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:4-5
So a vote for Michelle Bachmann is not a vote for her; it's a vote for her husband, Marcus.

And that might be OK with Bachmann's supporters. Marcus is, by all accounts, as bat-shit crazy as his wife. He loves Jesus just as much as she does (maybe even more).
But to vote for Marcus you must vote for Michele, which is something the Bible does not permit.
I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:12-14
A woman president would have authority over men, and thereby cause the word of God to be blasphemed. (If, as Doug Wilson says, Titus 2:5 means anything.)
So those who agree with Michele Bachmann shouldn't vote for her.
(Neither, of course, should anyone else.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/13/2011 12:14:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
7 comments:
 Belle said...
It's a good thing for her she doesn't live in a Christian country then.
Sat Aug 13, 05:21:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
@Belle:
It's true! But does she know that?
Steve Weeks
Sun Aug 14, 07:24:00 AM 2011 
 Belle said...
Probably not.
Sun Aug 14, 05:30:00 PM 2011 
 Nathan said...
That's the irony inherent in being a power-hungry fundamentalist Christian woman.
Mon Aug 15, 04:30:00 PM 2011 
 Jimmy said...
I just stumbled on to your blog through Reddit and all I can say is..BRAVO! keep it up!
Wed Aug 17, 08:54:00 PM 2011 
 Interested said...
Do love your posts!
Thu Aug 18, 10:06:00 AM 2011 
 starcrashx said...
Wonderful blog. That's a very insightful question asked of Mrs. Bachmann and a dodgy answer. Great job bringing this to the public eye.
Tue Aug 23, 10:51:00 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
    
 08 August 2011What Jesus said about 'Job Creators'
As Jon Stewart points out, we are no longer allowed to say that rich people are rich. "You have to refer to them as 'job creators.' You can't even use the word 'rich'. You have to say, 'This chocolate cake is so moist and job creator.'"


Well then, here's what Jesus said about job creators.
Verily I say unto you, That a rich man job creator shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man job creator to enter into the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25
Woe to you that are rich job creators! for ye have received your consolation. Luke 6:24
There was a certain rich man job creator, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's job creator's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man job creator also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Luke 16:19-25
Clearly, according to Jesus, job creators are going to hell. Their best hope for salvation is higher taxes. The more we tax them, the greater their chance of making it through the eye of the needle.
So let's save the job creators by taxing the hell out of them.
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/08/2011 04:19:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
3 comments:
 eldonreeves said...
Ugh, can't see that video outside of the US.
Been reading your blog awhile now (as well as dipping into the SAB) and all I can do is be ever more astonished at the wilful hypocrisy of Republican Evangelicals (and Christians in general).
Don't you find it all horribly depressing sometimes?
Tue Aug 09, 05:24:00 AM 2011 
 The Nerd said...
@eldonreeves: YES.
Sometimes I find it difficult to pull away from the horror I see and hear to simply enjoy a relaxing evening at home. The jokes (good and bad) help us deal with the pain.
Tue Aug 09, 07:43:00 AM 2011 
 nazani said...
My favorite Faux News comment is that poor people resent all the money the rich have "earned." It's hard for me to understand what any human could do that would justify "earning" over a million dollars a year, unless it were something like pediatric brain surgery.
I hope people are paying attention to the riots in London. I also hope that our rioters, when they day comes, are smart enough to select these neighborhoods, instead of busting up shops:
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/18/americas-most-affluent-communities-business-beltway.html
Wed Aug 10, 04:55:00 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
    
 02 August 2011Jesus Christ: The Former Mighty Warrior of the United States Air Force
The US Air Force has discontinued its Christian-based training class for nuclear missile officers after a report by Truthout. I guess the Air Force no longer points to Jesus as a model for its mighty warriors.
Here is a slide that was used in the program's Power Point presentation.

And here is the full description of Jesus "Mighty Warrior" Christ from Revelation 19 (verses 11-17).
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; hat ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men.
Yep, that's Just War Jesus for you.
He makes war, has eyes of fire, with many crowns on his head, a name that nobody knows but himself, has clothes dripping with blood, has another name called "the Word of God," leads an army of heavenly soldiers with a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth and an iron rod in his hand with a third set of names ("King of Kings and Lord of Lords") tattooed on his thigh (or scrotum), smiting nations and feeding the flesh of all the resulting dead human bodies to the birds.
Now that's a guy who'd enjoy launching a nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile!
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/02/2011 04:04:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
2 comments:
 nazani said...
Having been in the Army for over 11 years, myself, I'd just like to point out that the lengthy existence of this briefing is likely due to inertia. The military doesn't attract many people who have a clue about PPTs, graphics, etc. By the time you're assigned to a nuke post, you've already demonstrated that you're cool with 'just war, just any old war,' so I doubt that the religious content meant anything to anyone except the brownnoser who made the PPT.
In 1987 I was given a tray of slides and told to put together a mandatory threat briefing for brass in Heidelberg. Some of the slides were from the '60s, showing nude models with 'flip' hairdos and signs over their naughty bits. Had I shown those slides, my CO and I would have had our asses handed to us. When it comes to training materials, the Earth has to shift on its axis before the military will update them.
Sat Aug 06, 03:13:00 PM 2011 
 Dallin said...
I disagree with nazani. I am in the AF and we are changing our wing's training slides monthly. maybe if you had kept your perspective to comments about the army and not the military, as I know nothing about the army's way of doing things. AETC is quite different. Also, PPT use usually follow AETC guidelines where one slide shows only one piece of information as you don't want to expose too much at one time and have all sorts of problems like getting ahead of the material, having them raise questions before you can get to all of them, etc.
Also, the point of the slides were for chaplains to give a bit of justification from the religious side. Chaplains wouldn't be faced with the question the missileers have to face about turning the key, but they have a little knowledge about the Bible and that helps the missileer, or in theory it helps.
Sat Sep 17, 10:21:00 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
    
 01 August 2011The Exodus 30:15 debt limit "compromise"
The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel. Exodus 30:15
OK, it might take more than half a shekel (~ $10) from each US taxpayer, but you get the idea. Each of us pays the same, whether rich or poor.
Take the military, for example. Each of the 100.6 million full-time employees chips in $6810 this year and we've got the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya paid for. No sweat.
Then to pay off the debt (caused by unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy), we each throw in another $142,000 or so. A piece of cake.
It might be a bit rough for for the average worker making $39,000 a year, but Oh well. We must protect our "Job Creators" (wealthy people).
The Bible tells us so.
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/01/2011 06:32:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
2 comments:
 nazani said...
At least as we pay off that debt, we're mostly paying it to ourselves. 'Only' 19.4% is owed to overseas interests. (Thanks, M. Bachman, for proposing to stiff your fellow Americans.)
Sat Aug 06, 03:16:00 PM 2011 
 Anders said...
It doesn't actually say that all should pay the same. It says the rich should not pay more, and the poor should not pay less. So the rich would be free to pay nothing, while the poor would be allowed to pay 10 shekels. Fairness indoctrinated
Mon Oct 03, 02:52:00 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
    
 21 September 2011Women and the Bible: An analysis by book
Just one more analysis before I take a break for a few days.
I should mention, in case you haven't already noticed, that when I say "Women," I mean "Insults to women, misogyny, etc." The Bible doesn't have much nice to say about women, but when it does, I put it in the "Good Stuff." The same is true for the other categories, except for "Interpretation" and "Sex."
Here is the overall plot.

First Corinthians has the most insults to women in the New Testament, while Genesis, Leviticus, and Ezekiel have the most in the Old.
The Women Index is defined in the usual way -- Insults per 100 verses.

First Timothy, Titus, and First Peter have the highest WI in the New Testament, and Hosea is highest in the Old.
Here is the log-log plot for Women.

I'll finish the analyses next week when I get back.
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/21/2011 08:58:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
8 comments:
 Vyckie said...
Ack. No wonder my desperate struggle to live "biblically" was such a disaster! :(
Thu Sep 22, 05:52:00 AM 2011 
 nazani said...
I was just wondering if you asked a woman to help you find insults, and what her age was.
Sat Sep 24, 07:00:00 AM 2011 
 Fatman said...
While I agree with the analysis, one must bear in mind the fact that the Bible was not written in enlightened times. Misoginy and treatment of women as inferiors was prevalent in those days - of course it looks terrible when read from a modern perspective.
Of course, this does not make modern-day individuals who choose to live their life in accordance with this ridiculous text any easier to understand. But it does provide some explanation for the observed behavior of religious idiots - most of them hate women and consider them inferior beings, and even those who do not go to such extremes are likely to dismiss disagreement coming from wives, sisters, female coworkers, etc., as "nonsense".
Sat Sep 24, 12:40:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
No, nazani, all of the lists, categories, and annotations at the SAB are mine and mine alone. Oh, I often ask my wife, daughter, and other women what they think about various Bible passages, but in the end I decide what to include and what to leave out. I think it is wrong to cut off a woman's hand as God commands in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 or to stone a rape victim if she doesn't cry out loud enough, or can't prove she's a virgin on her wedding night. I think it's OK for a woman to speak, wear pants, and have authority over men. If you agree with me on these passages, you'll probably agree with me on most of the others that I've marked. If not, that's fine. Make up your own mind and list.
Fri Sep 30, 08:37:00 PM 2011 
 Linus said...
I'll support anyone who plots a graph of insults to women/bible verse. You, sir, are a hero!
Fri Oct 07, 07:39:00 AM 2011 
 Abbie said...
Misogyny and treatment of women as inferiors and property of men are commonly attributed to "those days" - as opposed to the ever "loving god" who is the inspiration for all scripture. You know, the "divinely written book". Convenient don't you think?
Fri Oct 28, 01:47:00 PM 2011 
 Matteo Raggi said...
How many insults are totally counted on bible?
Tue Jan 10, 07:24:00 PM 2012 
 ibelieve said...
you seem to read all scriptures wih preconcieved ideas. The bible actually speeks highly of women in many cases. there are insults to specific women but there are also insults to specific men becuase we are all flawed and need wakeup calls.
I'm sorry to hear it was a disaster, Vyckie, but none of us are perfect its about living for God not for ourselves it makes it easier
Mon Feb 11, 09:06:00 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
    
 21 September 2011Biblical Sex: An analysis by book
I know, I said injustice was next, but the Family Values analysis got me thinking about sex. So that's what I'm doing now.

As you can see, there's not much sex in the New Testament. We've got the whore of Babylon in Revelation, Paul saying there's no time for sex because Jesus is coming in 1 Corinthians, and Jesus telling us to cut off whatever body part causes us to commit adultery in our hearts in Matthew. But that's about it.
No, for sex, stick with the Old Testament. The Song of Solomon, Genesis, Leviticus, and Ezekiel will keep you busy for a lifetime.
The Sex Index is defined in the usual way (Sexual encounters per 100 verses).

I think we have a winner here. Nothing beats the Song of Solomon for sex.

Posted by Steve Wells at 9/21/2011 04:46:00 PM   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 September 2011Biblical Family Values: An analysis by book
Here are the family values plots.

Matthew and Luke have the most Family Values in the New Testament and Genesis does in the Old.
And here's how it looks when size is accounted for. (Family Values Index is the number of Family Values per 100 verses.)

First Peter takes the FVI prize in the New Testament and Hosea, Esther, and Ruth win the Old Testament's gold, silver, and bronze Family Values medals.
And here is the log-log plot (minus the books with no family values).

Next: Injustice.
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/21/2011 01:11:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
3 comments:
 Monocle Lad said...
I know its petty, but shouldn't red be New Testament, because thats the Jesus testament and his words are famous for being red text. :p
The charts as always are very interesting.
Wed Sep 21, 04:01:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Yeah, I suppose you're right. The choice was mostly arbitrary, but I thought red went with all the blood, guts, and gore in the Old Testament. But maybe the NT should be red in honor of the Red-Letter Christians and the Bibles they named themselves after. It's too much trouble to change now though. (Maybe in a later revision.)
Wed Sep 21, 05:17:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
OK, Monocle Lad. I reversed the color coding, so now the Old Testament is black and the New Testament is red -- in honor of the "Red Letter Christians."
Sat Oct 01, 09:19:00 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
    
 21 September 2011Cruelty in the Bible: An analysis by book
Here are the plots for Cruelty.

Revelation and Leviticus have the most cruelties in the New and Old Testaments, respectively. But notice that there are a few cruelty-free books in each. These won't show up in the log-log plot, since it is bad luck to take the log of zero.
Here is a plot of the Cruelty Index, which is defined in the usual way (Cruelties / 100 verses).

Revelation and Leviticus stay in first place even after adjusting for their relatively large sizes. These two are blood-red with cruelty.
And here's the log-log plot (without the cruelty-free books).


Next up: Family Values.
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/21/2011 11:29:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
5 comments:
 LIve In Stereo News said...
Your charts are fascinating and I can tell you are intelligent. It is too bad. It is too bad that someone as driven and smart as you is so bored that he cannot figure out a more productive use of time.
Wed Sep 21, 12:01:00 PM 2011 
 mikespeir said...
I'm surprised Galatians ranked so low. This verse alone should have improved its score:
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Wed Sep 21, 02:30:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
You're right, mikespeir. I have Gal 1:9 listed as an injustice, but it should be a cruelty too.
I've made the change at the SAB and I'm in the process of revising the graphs, as well. Thanks for the comment.
Wed Sep 21, 03:15:00 PM 2011 
 Aquaria said...
Your charts are fascinating and I can tell you are intelligent. It is too bad. It is too bad that someone as driven and smart as you is so bored that he cannot figure out a more productive use of time.
Your post isn't fascinating, and I can tell that you're not an intelligent person. It is too bad. It is too bad that someone as petty and ignorant as you is so bored that he cannot figure out a more productive use of his time than going onto a site and trying to tell someone how to live his life when it's none of his fucking business.
Get a life, loser.
Sat Nov 12, 05:55:00 PM 2011 
 Daniel Rosenberg said...
Shouldn't an analysis like this take into account level of cruelty not just number of verses that can be seen as cruel?
For instance Leviticus gets one point for a verse like this:
"Take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it ... seven times."
and the following section also gets one point and thus using this metric are considered equally cruel:
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 left 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." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins.)
Not to mention that the sprinkling of blood is mentioned numerous time and thus is counted numerous times, resulting in the top subject to be counted many times over that of the latter point.
Perhaps I am over analyzing or this has been taken into account, but I wouldn't base number of verses that contain cruelty to be the only basis of determining what is the cruelest book(s) in the bible
Thu Apr 04, 09:06:00 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
    
 21 September 2011Contradictions in the Bible: An analysis by book
I promised in my last post that I would create and analyze a Boring Index for the books of the Bible, and I'll to get to that. But first, I thought I'd go through the categories in the SAB and do unto them as I did to the absurdities. So here it is for the contradictions.
(Thanks for the suggestions in the comments on the plots.)
First I'll plot the number of contradictions in each book by testament.

Notice that the gospels have the most contradictions in the New Testament, as does Genesis in the Old. No big surprise there. But they are also rather big books. What happens if we take size into account?
We can do that with the Contradiction Index, which is just the number of contradictions per 100 verses. Here's what that looks like.

There are some surprises here. James is the most contradictory book of the New Testament, with Malachi taking the gold in the Old.
And here's a log-log plot of the number of contradictions versus the number of verses.

And now on to cruelty!
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/21/2011 08:40:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
6 comments:
 Tony said...
I'm curious about the most self-contradictory book. I understand that Malachi might contradict something (say) in Genesis but what would be really damning is if Malachi contradicts Malachi.
Wed Sep 21, 10:52:00 AM 2011 
 Andy said...
Hey, I didn't see the blogger share buttons. It would help so that I could tweet this to my followers.
Wed Sep 21, 10:52:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Good question, Tony. I'm interested in that, too. I plan to do an analysis of the contradictions between books. Which books are contradicted the most by James for example? Romans? 1 Corinthians? Galatians? Deuteronomy? That will be fun. (But also a lot of work.)
As for self-contradictions in Malachi, well, I don't know of any. But since it only has 10 contradictions (in its 50 or so verses), it shouldn't be too hard to find out. (I've added links in the post to the list of contradictions for Malachi and James.)
Wed Sep 21, 11:06:00 AM 2011 
 Ken Bagwell said...
In doing a bible study, I came across 'The skeptics bible'. Actually, it's a pretty good resource! But you really owe it to yourself to look at the 'Christian responses' links at the very bottom. To play this game(honestly and fairly) you have to search out what other learned men have said about these 'contradictions' - Christians who really know the bible. It's very easy to flummox an layman with stuff like this and give yourself a false sense of security.
Thu Apr 25, 02:08:00 PM 2013 
 Maureen Carr said...
Nice site. I have always seen Gen. 1 & 2 as two separate stories. Gen 1 where God creates male and female in his image and Gen 2 where 1 man is created from the dust of the earth and put to work in a garden. The fact that god tried to find a helpmate from the animals that were created after Adams creation tells me Adam was considered a subhuman worker. When they (gods) realized that there was no bird or land animal ( note no mention of the creatures of the sea in this second account) who was a suitable meta/helper for Adam. The rib part that Eve was supposedly made from never made sense to me until one day the words ribonucleic acid came to me. Eve was a little bit of Adam and possibly a little part the gods of Gen 2. I continue to look for answers but since you know there are two separate creation accounts in Gen 1 & 2 I just thought I'd share this with you. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Regards,
Maureen
Sat Mar 29, 06:56:00 PM 2014 
 Maureen Carr said...
Dang, let me correct a few things:When they (gods) realized that there was no bird or land animal ( note no mention of the creatures of the sea in this second account) who was a suitable mate/helper for Adam they went a step further and made a hybrid who resembled Adam.
Sat Mar 29, 07:03:00 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
    
 20 September 2011One Last Look at the Absurdities
In the comments, Adam suggested that I do a log-log plot of the absurdity data, which was an excellent idea. It separates the mass of points involving the small books of the Bible and tames down the big ones.
Here's the result with some of the more interesting books identified.
(Red = New Testament, Black = Old Testament)

Thanks Adam!
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/20/2011 06:30:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
5 comments:
 Brian D said...
I know you said it's the last one, but if I had to make one small suggestion, it would be to color-code these by Old and New testaments. Gives an immediate visual representation of the claims made on old/new testament absurdity.
The size of the dots is another variable, but I can't think of any other piece of relevant information that's related to size and not already presented here.
Tue Sep 20, 06:54:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Personally, I don't know math from a hole in the ground. ;-)
But... what would these plots look like in polar coordinates?
Steve Weeks
Tue Sep 20, 06:57:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Good idea, Brian. I'll work on that one, too. I'll just replace the graph with a color-coded version.
Tue Sep 20, 06:59:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
You don't need to know any math (or use polar coordinates) to use and understand these graphs, Stephen. Take the log-log plot of absurdities, for example. The points are plotted in a log scale, but the axes are labeled with the numbers themselves.
Look at the point labeled "Leviticus". From the graph you can see that it has 160 or so (158 actually) absurdities and about 900 verses (859 is the exact number). You can do that for any other point on the graph while getting a sense of the which books have an unusual number of absurdities for their size.
Does any of that make sense or do I have to do an arcsine transformation for you?
Wed Sep 21, 10:19:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Thanks, Steve,
I'm good with that. :-D
Steve Weeks
Wed Sep 21, 06:20:00 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
    
 20 September 2011Another Look at the Absurdities in the Bible
Some of you were probably bothered by my last post on absurdities. Regression analysis is lots of fun, but what you really wanted was a Cleveland dot chart that would show at a glance the total number of absurdities in each book of the Bible. So I decided to make one for you.

So it turns out that Luke has the most absurdities in the New Testament, with Revelation a close second. Luke didn't show up as an outlier in the regression analysis since it also has the most verses in the New Testament.
What we need is an Absurdity Index that will take into account the number of absurdities and the number of verses.
And here's what I came up with.
Absurdity Index = 100 * Number of Absurdities / Number of Verses
Which is the number of absurdities per 100 verses.
Here's the Absurdity Index dot chart.

Now we see that Revelation is the clear winner for the New Testament, but Leviticus only gets the Old Testament's bronze medal for Absurdity. The little books of Jonah and Haggai are the most absurd, as measured by the Absurdity Index.
And what about the book of Psalms? It looked like a low outlier in the regression analysis, but now it's buried near the bottom with a bunch little books. Ezra and Nehemiah have the lowest AIs, but that's not because they're good; it's because they are so damned boring.
Which will be the topic of my next Biblical Statistics post: The Boring Index.
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/20/2011 04:12:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
4 comments:
 skanksta said...
:)
Wed Sep 21, 03:16:00 PM 2011 
 J said...
You don't define "absurd" which indicates a lack of objectivity and more a leaning towards manipulation similar to that of American media.
Sun Oct 02, 02:25:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Oh, thanks for that J. That was really helpful.
But actually I do define "absurd" -- in a subjective, manipulating, sort of way, like you'd expect from the American media.
Sun Oct 02, 02:48:00 PM 2011 
 Gary Brisebois said...
Now do the writings of Lewis Carroll.
Thu Mar 06, 06:04:00 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
    
 19 September 2011Helping Believers Resolve Contradictions: A Biblically Correct Approach
Up to now I've mostly ignored contradictions. Oh, I list them, alright, but I don't focus on them, because they seem to me to be the least of the Bible's problems. Deuteronomy 13:6-10 is disgusting to everyone that reads it. And believers know better than to try to defend it or any of the thousands of other similarly unjustifiable passages. They focus on the contradictions instead.
And I've never seen a contradiction that a believer can't explain away in one way or another. Rarely, however, is a contradiction actually resolved with a straight answer.
So I've decided to help them out. I'm going to try to find Biblically Correct answers to all of the contradictions that I've listed. (They'll be given at the bottom of each contradiction.)
But first, I'll explain my approach. I begin with the believer's most sacred assumption, as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof" etc.
So when scriptures disagree, I'll try to resolve the disagreement by using the scriptures themselves. I'll begin by listing the passages that favor each side of the contradiction. Then I'll count the number on each side and select the Biblically Correct answer by determining which side has the highest number of divinely inspired passages. Let the Holy Ghost vote on it, so to speak.
That should work for most contradictions, but what happens with a tie?
I don't have a simple answer to that, except to say that I will try to find a Biblically Correct way to resolve God's disagreement with himself.
So let's get started. Here is the first contradiction on the list. How many men did the chief of David's captains kill? 800 300
2 Samuel 23:8
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. (KJV)
These are the names of David's mighty men: Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was chief of the Three; he raised his spear against eight hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter. (NIV)
These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshe'beth a Tah-che'monite; he was chief of the three; he wielded his spear against eight hundred whom he slew at one time. (RSV)  1 Chronicles 11:11
And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time. (KJV)
this is the list of David's mighty men: Jashobeam, a Hacmonite, was chief of the officers; he raised his spear against three hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter. (NIV)
This is an account of David's mighty men: Jasho'be-am, a Hach'monite, was chief of the three; he wielded his spear against three hundred whom he slew at one time. (RSV) 
Note from the Oxford Annotated Bible for 2 Samuel 23:8-11: Josheb-basshebeth a Tachemonite is an error of a copyist; 1 Chr 11.11 has Jashobeam a Hachmonite. It has been proposed that the man's original name was Ishbaal (see 2.8 n. and 11.14-25 n.).
So according to the Oxford Annotated Bible, Jashobeam and Josheb-basshe'beth (and Ishbaal) are different names for the same person.


Darn! Wouldn't you know it? The very first contradiction is a tie. First Chronicles says one thing and Second Samuel another. How will we ever know how many guys old what's-his-name impaled on his spear? This is important stuff, too. God wants us to know the answer. That's why he put it in the Bible -- twice.
Well, luckily when different versions of the same story are told in 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel, we know which divinely inspired story to believe. First Chronicles was written several centuries after Second Samuel and the Chronicler used 2 Samuel as a source, so any conflict between them is easily resolved. The Biblically Correct answer is from 2 Samuel.
And just like that, the first contradiction is resolved. The answer is 800.
Wasn't that fun?
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/19/2011 04:54:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
84 comments:
 teavee said...
Gen 8:5 was presumably written several seconds after Gen 8:4 was written, so the Biblically Correct resolution is Gen 8:5. Is that right?
Mon Sep 19, 05:59:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
No, teavee, I think this one is going to be a tough one to resolve. It isn't always easy to be Biblically Correct. But we need to keep trying. The Holy Ghost is depending on us to sort this mess out for him. (He is a male, isn't he? I mean, he has a penis and all that, doesn't he?)
Mon Sep 19, 06:18:00 PM 2011 
 skepticmatt said...
Actually, I think the biblically correct way of deciding a tie is to cast lots.
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." (Proverbs 16:33)
So just flip a coin. It'll land the way magic sky man wants it to. Terrifying as it is, there are actually people who make decisions this way.
Mon Sep 19, 06:49:00 PM 2011 
 Richard said...
But doesn't solve the conflict. If Timothy says *all* scripture is the divine inspiration of God and must be correct, and if Chronicles is also scripture, then regardless of its later date Chronicles cannot be wrong.
Mon Sep 19, 06:50:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
Where does god say which book was written at which time ?
Isn't this a human construct ?
Teavee's point is, (possibly accidentally) logical.
If god doesn't say what order his books were written in, in his book, then surely the biblically correct answer is both at the same time ?
It's a stupid answer, but then, it's a stupid book.
By the way Steve - excellent idea on the contradictions.
I'm sure these will be lots of fun...
Mon Sep 19, 08:10:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
O, come on, fellas... The ark was tired, carrying all those animals, supplies, waste... it needed a rest. Then back to sea for three more months. No problem!
Steve Weeks
Mon Sep 19, 08:31:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
You're right, skepticmatt! Now I'll be able to resolve them all. If there's no good way to know which is (more) Biblically Correct, I can always do it God's way by casting lots. I'll do it in my own lap and leave it up to God, just like it says in Proverbs 16:33.
As for you, Richard, of course it solves the problem. One of the statements must be true, since they can't both be -- or at least one is more true, or at lest more likely to be true than the other. They couldn't all be equally false, could they?
Yeah, I suppose teavee has point, skanksta, on the Gen 8:4/5 contradiction. It's either that or casting lots in my lap.
And I am already having too much fun with this. I've already resolved the first six. I can't make myself stop. I need help!
Mon Sep 19, 09:07:00 PM 2011 
 teavee said...
Steve, If you do flip coins, roll dice, whatever, make sure you do it only once for each question. God will make the first result non-random. If you do it multiple times to verify the answer, you lack faith. Then God will have known this and will have made the first result random along with all the subsequent results.
Mon Sep 19, 10:50:00 PM 2011 
 Il Censore said...
Just 2c: it is 2 Timothy, not 1 Timoty.
Tue Sep 20, 02:30:00 AM 2011 
 Andy said...
I fear that your head is going to explode if you do too many of these.
Tue Sep 20, 04:39:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks for the correction, Il censore. I need to be more careful if I'm going to correctly correct God's mistakes.
Tue Sep 20, 06:33:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Your right, teavee. I should only do it once, although sometimes three times seems to work better (See 1 Kings 1:1-15 for example).
What I really need is an Urim and Thummim. You don't know where I could get a pair of those, do you?
Or maybe I should use some of Joseph Smith's seer stones.
Or dreams. God often communicates important things to people when they're sleeping.
Or maybe I should ask a witch to bring Samuel back from the dead to answer the question for me, like Saul did in 1 Sam 28:8-19. That worked out well for him.
Or I could ask for an evil spirit from the Lord to help me find an answer. (1 Sam 18:10)
Or make some golden hemorrhoids, put them in a cart pulled by oxen, and send them on their way. If they go to Pullman, then it's one thing and if to Troy, another. (1 Sam 6:7-10)
Or should I strip off all my clothes and lie around naked all day and night? That'd make me a prophet so I cold prophesy the answer or something (1 Sam 19:24).
I'm pretty sure there's an answer in 1 Samuel somewhere.
Keep your ideas coming. I want as many options as possible.
Tue Sep 20, 07:10:00 AM 2011 
 Lovie said...
Regarding Question 1. How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?
I take the assumption that Joshebbassebet the Tachmonite (a.k.a. Adino the Eznite) and Jashobeam an Hachmonite are in fact the same person. I think we need to take this assumption because the following verses in each passage both reference Eleazar son of Dodo the Aholite.
I see two possibilities here. On the one hand, 300 is less than 800; therefore, when he speared 800 men on one day he also speared 300 on the same day. On the other hand, these could just be two different days: he speared 800 on one day and 300 on another day.
Sat Oct 01, 11:35:00 AM 2011 
 SamuEL said...
In Hebrew, 300 and 800 do consist of very similar letter formations. When writing on papyrus or skins that naturally have texture making copies can be tedious. Who cares if it was 300 or 800 it was a lot. The writers of the scriptures where indeed inspired by God... does this type of copyist discrepancy really change the inspired content of the scriptures...no it does not. The scriputes by their doctrine and content bear witness to Holy inspiration not picking apart every textual error.
Sat Nov 26, 10:59:00 PM 2011 
 David said...
The thing that gets me with Christians is they blatantly lie about contradictions. They CAN'T be honest and they MUST explain away contradictions with one convoluted and contradictory explanation after another because if they just admit the obvious IE:it is a contradiction, then obviously the Bible isn't the "word of God", then the Atheists and other religious people who don't believe the Bible must be correct, then they lose their security blanket-salvation. Just like what SamuEL had said, my point. They must make excuses to explain away an obvious problem just like this person did. My question to them is if it was the inspired word of God, and God is not the author of confusion, then why the difficulty in the first place? Is this "God" so incompetent that "He" couldn't have got it right the first time? Is "He" so incompetent that he needs us puny humans to prove how something that is blatantly a contradiction isn't "really" a contradiction? If he really was guiding the translators no matter what paper it was originally written on or the difficulty of writing down the correct information, if he truly is the one and only correct god WHY in a million years are there so many "translation" errors? Statements like the one SamuEL made prove to me that Christianity is bullshit. They jump through hoops trying to prove what is a contradiction isn't "really" a contradiction when all it does is make it look WORSE than just admitting it's a contradiction. My favorite is using an explanation that sounds as bad as a child who gets its hand caught in the cookie jar by it's mommy, the kid denies it while they are in the process of pulling a cookie out of the jar. IE:the devil planted the archaelogical evidence that disproves scripture(yes it does exist just as evidence for some historical events occurring also exists this that or the other king living at a certain time for instance), and the scripturally valid evidence in their mind proves the Bible true, but yet the evidence that shows the Bible is full of shit is neatly swept under the rug complete with an explanation that is insulting to my intelligence-the devil planted the evidence there because God was making things more difficult to believe as a test of faith...WHAT?! The "contradiction" makes the Bible EASIER to believe...WHAT?! That for all Christians reading this is why there are ex-Christians who become Atheist. You try to defend your book, but in the process you destroy the faith.
Sat Jan 07, 11:04:00 AM 2012 
 Theodore A. Jones said...
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13
Mon Jan 09, 12:49:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
Wow... I stumbled across this blog somehow and after just reading your first paragraph it was clear how little you know about the bible and its history. (Though I did read past the first paragraph, and that only confirmed it for me.) Take some classes on the the history of the Torah, biblical history, and exegesis before making an idiot of yourself to anyone educated in this area who happens to read your blog.
Wed Feb 22, 10:56:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
OK, Cormack. Explain the meaning of Deuteronomy 13:6-10. Use your extensive knowledge in the Bible and its history and exegesis to show why it is a good thing to stone to death your family and friends if they ask you to believe in a different god.
Wed Feb 22, 11:39:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
First of all, it's not "a good thing" to stone anyone to death--family or not. Even in Deuteronomy this was not a good thing, but for the nation of Israel it was a necessary thing, which I'll explain in a minute.
One of the central purposes of the covenant that God made with the people of Israel was to reveal himself to the surrounding nations; to show the nations that He alone was the one true God, above all other "gods" at that time, and that He alone is supreme. (This was necessary in order for the next step to occur, which was to show the world that He, the holy author of life, loves all people and can redeem them, no matter what they have done in their lives, so that they can ultimately have abundant lives of peace and joy with God. But this is getting ahead of ourselves. First it was necessary for God to reveal his ultimate authority, which for whatever reason He purposed to do through Abraham and his descendants.)
All of the surrounding nations at that time had various gods that they would worship and sacrifice to. They believed that if they pleased their god(s), everything they did would prosper (including, among other things, victory in battle). God chose to make a covenant through Abraham through which he would ultimately "bless all nations". The first step was to make himself known as supreme, THE God. The way the nations at that time would understand this is by serving the true God faithfully and prospering as a result. Of course, for the world to see that the God Israel served was the supreme God, the other nations would need to know that this was the only God Israel served. Otherwise, which God is actually the one blessing Israel and making them prosper? This is why God was so serious about not allowing foreign "gods" into the nation of Israel, and also why they were given very unique and seemingly obscure laws to follow strictly - God wanted to give them a very distinct identity among the nations, to make Israel "holy" ("set apart") and to reveal his ultimate authority by making them prosper. (Of course, as we know, the Israelites failed at these burdensome laws time and time again, which is one of the reasons Jesus would later fulfill the law for them in himself and would manifest some of God's other attributes, such as grace, in order to redeem all people, restoring all who seek forgiveness to a loving relationship with God.)
Essentially, you have to look at the big picture. 1) Everybody dies. Will they die of old age? Will they die in battle at the hands of another nation? Will their death serve a purpose in the nation of Israel and/or God's larger plan of holiness and redemption? 2) The nation of Israel, as part of their covenant, would need to follow God strictly in order for the other nations to truly be able to "see" God through their nation.
The stoning was always something to mourn, and was also never meant to be a permanent enactment or a reflection of God - rather it served a functional purpose for Israel, not a descriptive one about God's character. Also, in enacting the judgment, the hope would be that those doing it would feel terrible doing it and move them in the direction of longing for grace and mercy.
(Now, obviously that doesn't solve the emotional aversion people today have to such a primitive method of judgment. God has since put a stop to all of that, at any rate.)
Thu Feb 23, 11:51:00 AM 2012 
 Cormack said...
@David:
I AM a Christian, and I do acknowledge contradictions in the Bible. God, for whatever reason, works WITH and THROUGH us, not FOR us. He chooses to limit himself and share power (and thus responsibility) with us. For this reason, the Bible isn't perfect and neither is the Church. And no, of course that doesn't mean "atheists are right". Atheists will believe they are right because they cannot prove God using their own methods, and Christians will continue to believe they are right because they know that, if there is a God, scientific proof is limited to our own reality, not its author.
Thu Feb 23, 12:42:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
Carmack,
You say it was not "a good thing" to stone family and friends as God commanded in Dt. 13:6-10, but it was "a necessary thing."
Here are God's words in those verses:
If thy brother ... 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 ... Thou shalt not consent unto him ... neither shall thine eye pity him ... But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
Was it right or wrong for the Israelites to obey this command of God? Would it be right or wrong for you to obey it today?
You say, "The stoning was always something to mourn ... the hope would be that those doing it would feel terrible doing it."
Well, it wasn't God's hope, that's for sure. Here's what he said when giving the command.
"Neither shall thine eye pity him ... But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death."
You're right though, Carmack, all that exegetical knowledge of yours is coming in handy. I feel like an idiot already.
Thu Feb 23, 02:57:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
I understand your aversion to stoning... Anyone with a conscience would be averse to that. For someone who believes in evolution, however, I am surprised that you do not seem to understand the philosophical concept that morality might also be context-dependent. But I am not surprised that that you seem to assume that the Torah was meant to be applied directly to Christians and Jews today. Most atheists I talk to assume the same thing. Many, in fact, grow up in Christian homes but reject "God" because of the same shallow understanding about the scriptures or their modern implications. It is unfortunate that so many people reject the message of Jesus after only a cursory glance the history behind scriptures or the context from which they were recorded. The vast majority of "issues" people have with the scriptures are either misinformed or would be genuinely resolved after further research. Only a small minority of the issues they have raised are ones that should actually cause genuine wrestling with concepts about God, truth, and morality. (Notice I believe those issues do exist, but I don't think they warrant rejection of all things God-related.)
I don't know how philosophically inclined you are, but in order for you to answer your question you have to consider what "right" means. What is your moral standard? If you believe the "right" course of action in any given case is something that remains constant across time and context, then it was wrong for the Israelites to obey this command. If you believe that a "right" course of action is one that takes into account culture, context, and evolution, then you may have a harder time finding an answer to your question.
If you are asking my opinion, I think that if God commanded the Israelites to do that then it was right for them to obey. It served part of a much bigger and more important purpose than the next 40 or 50 years of life any one of those people may have had. It's good that you place a high value on individual human life - I think all people should. But we place even more importance on individual human life today than was common at the time those commands were given. Back then, much more emphasis and value was placed on the well-being of one's people-group, collectively, than we do today. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, tend to place a high emphasis on individualism. Even other modern cultures such as Japan place more value on their family or community than they would any one contributing member of it. Perhaps if they read the verses in question, they would totally understand its purpose - just like the Hebrew people at that time, and the nations around them, did.
It would be wrong for you or I to obey such a command today, which is why God has not commanded either of us to do such a thing. To do so would be to take a specific command given to a specific group of people out of time and context to be applied directly to you or me today.
Thu Feb 23, 09:56:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
Cormack,
So it was right to stone to death your family and friends as God commanded in Dt.13:6-10 before Jesus, but wrong after?
Why didn't God make that clear when giving that command?
Why did he put things like this in the Bible?
"All thy commandments are truth ... Thou hast founded them for ever." Psalm 119:150-1
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160
And why did Jesus say this?
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Mt.5:18-19
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17
Are there any jots and tittles that you think still apply, Cormack? How about Leviticus 20:13 or Exodus 18:22? Leviticus 19:18 maybe?
Is there anything that you think is wrong -- for everyone in all cultures and time periods? Is it wrong, for example, to burn people to death?
Sat Feb 25, 01:48:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
Steve,
No, it was right for the Israelites at that time to stone to death someone who brought idols into their nation (even if it was members of their own family). Why didn't God make that clear when He gave that command? If I say to my roommate, "You need to do the dishes" would you think I am talking to EVERYONE IN THE WORLD? :) Did you really think that the command your referencing was meant to be for all people, everywhere, at all times?
"Why did he put things like this in the Bible?"
Really?? That question doesn't even warrant an answer... (God didn't write the Bible. Neither did Jesus.)
I'll assume that perhaps you meant, "why did God allow the church to include that in the Bible"? That is a question worth answering. In order to understand the New Testament (new covenant) one must understand the Old Testament (the covenant God had originally made with Abraham and his descendants). So the church figured that it was important to include the Jewish Books of Law (the Pentateuch), Books of History, Books of Poetry, and the prophetic books, even though their law does not apply to us.
"All thy commandments are truth ... Thou hast founded them for ever." Psalm 119:150-1
"And why did Jesus say this?"
Jesus didn't say this. Seriously, you need to do some research (although it doesn't take research to know that Jesus didn't write that - just some critical thinking). (Even spending 5 minutes with Google will give you answers to some of these simple questions.)
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Mt.5:18-19
Now, Jesus did say that. He was implying that He was about to "fulfill" it all. In the meantime, the law was still there (and would always be there, though after it is fulfilled by him everything changes).
"Are there any jots and tittles that you think still apply, Cormack? How about Leviticus 20:13 or Exodus 18:22? Leviticus 19:18 maybe?"
The short answer is, no. Though the law is still around, but it is fulfilled in Jesus. All of it. It is no longer meant to be applied to the nation of Israel today (let alone Gentiles like you and me, for whom it never applied in the first place) as it was before Jesus came.
"Is there anything that you think is wrong -- for everyone in all cultures and time periods?"
Yes, but such a broad and universal question requires a very broad answer. I believe it is wrong to disobey God.
(By the way, the Psalms are essentially songs and letters to God, emotional and artistic writing - not the Law or any kind of system out of which to build a theology.)
I'm not going to attempt to teach you everything there is to know about the Bible - you can do that on your own time if you care to learn. But blabbing out misinformed statements or accusations without knowledge is not becoming. A place to start is by actually understanding who wrote the different "books" of the Bible, who they were written to, when, for what purposes, etc. http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310384915 The author of the above book is a well-known and respected contemporary biblical scholar. If you want to be serious about issues in the Bible (because there are some), I suggest you see what the experts have to say. But if you don't and you just want to have fun posting silly little uninformed straw-man arguments like you did here, go ahead - but acknowledge them for what they are...
Sorry if I come across as rude. I just get frustrated sometimes when people say things without knowledge, and it is even more frustrating when other people take those people seriously.
Sat Feb 25, 02:57:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
Cormack,
You have nothing to teach me, or anyone else, about the Bible. So please, stop lecturing.
I understand why you don't want to answer my questions, though. You are deeply ashamed of most of the Bible, so rather than try to defend it, you insult me instead.
Sat Feb 25, 03:28:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
Lol... I'll answer any serious questions you have, but most of the assumptions you have made have been ones that anyone serious about them would realize were incorrect, after only 5 minutes of googling. What I mean is that I don't want to answer questions with incorrect premises. I'd be happy to dialogue with you if you are serious enough to at least make an effort.
Sat Feb 25, 03:35:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
Will you stop with the googling (and lol), Cormack? Five minutes of googling about religion will give you whatever the most popular belief happens to be -- which, unfortunately, still happens to be yours. But that's changing, isn't it?
I understand that you think your religious views and interpretations of the Bible are the only correct ones. But you'll have to do better than just making that claim and asking for support from the google.
Whatever premises you make, need to be stated and defended.
I'm glad you are willing to answer my questions. I'll start with this one.
Leviticus 20:14 says this: "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they."
Was this a good idea at the time it was written? Was it right to burn husband, wife, and mother-in-law if the husband "took" them both?
Was it right to burn people to death back then for any reason? Would it be OK to do that now?
I tried googling it, but all I got was this.
Sat Feb 25, 04:29:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
I had a feeling you would try to make it sound as though I find "support" from googling popular opinions rather than having established my views from reading books and commentaries by those who actually spend their lives studying the subjects. Certainly you will find popular and mistaken beliefs on google, but you will also find sites summarizing actual scholarly views. If you want to be sure, however, I'd recommend using a "google scholar" search and looking for commentaries on whatever verse you have questions about.
The burning was to be done after they died. If you'd read it critically, taking the verse in the context of the whole rather than prooftexting (singling a verse out of its original context), you could see that the death sentence for individuals was always to be done by stoning. There are places where individuals were consumed by fire, but the instances I can think of where this was done was always by God directly, not by another person.
I already answered the other half of your question, but I'll answer it again: We are not bound by those laws.
You ask if it is okay to burn someone to death for any reason. I wasn't alive in the past, so I don't know about any culture or instances where this was okay, I have no reason to believe it was every okay for one person to burn another to death. (Perhaps during a war, if there were no other means, it may have been okay, but this is just speculation.) It generally was not okay even for the Israelites. Burning was only to be done after death. And I would say it is certainly not okay to burn someone to death today.
Sat Feb 25, 05:08:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
You say, with your usual confidence, that "the burning was to be done after they died." But how do you get that from the context? There's a long list of people to be killed in Leviticus 20 (parent-cursing children, adulterers, homosexuals, people having sex with animals, etc.), but only two are to be killed by stoning (wizards and those who give their seed to Moloch). Verse 20, however, says to burn the strange threesome. It doesn't say stone them to death first (or use lethal injection) and then burn their bodies.
God likes to burn people to death. What do you have against it?
Sat Feb 25, 06:01:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
I'll grant that it is more difficult to recognize just by the context that the burning spoken of in the verse refers to the destruction of those individuals after death rather than a burning to death - for this to be apparent one would have to understand a little bit of the way the laws were structured in Leviticus. The entire chapter 20 of Leviticus focuses on things often done by those who worshiped Molek (verse 9 is not referring specifically to children), and are to be read as a whole. In the beginning of the chapter (as in other chapters in Leviticus) the punishment for worshiping Molek, which is specified in the rest of the verses of chapter 20, is death carried out by stoning. The rest of the verses describe things that are often done by worshipers of Molek. They Israelites were expected to be cautious of those things and not to tolerate those who practiced those things in their own nation. The assumption is that the death sentence is stoning, as stated in the first couple verses of the chapter. The burning, most scholars agree (you don't have to take my word for it; you can look at some commentaries yourself if you want), was not the death sentence itself but the method of disposal. Those who did the act were not even allowed a proper burial.
"God likes to burn people to death. What do you have against it?"
God doesn't "like" to burn people to death, or even stoning. This is just faulty logic. If a mother spanks her children when they do something wrong, you wouldn't assume that she "likes" doing it. (At least I wouldn't. Whenever my parents disciplined me they gave me a talk first about how they don't "like" doing it, but that what I did was unacceptable and this was the consequence my family had agreed to give.)
Sun Feb 26, 01:16:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
Cormack,
So I guess you misspoke when you said this in your previous comment:
"The burning was to be done after they died. If you'd read it critically, taking the verse in the context of the whole rather than prooftexting (singling a verse out of its original context), you could see that the death sentence for individuals was always to be done by stoning."
The only reason for saying that the burning was after death is to try to make it sound (slightly) less disgusting. There's nothing in the context that suggests that the punishment was anything other than what the text says: "they shall be burnt with fire."
Still, you say that most (apologist) scholars agree with you. So I guess you've read their opinions. Could you provide a reference?
God doesn't "like" to burn people to death, or even stoning. This is just faulty logic.
Well, he sure does it a lot, Cormack. Like when they complain too much (Num 11:1), burn incense without a license (Lev 10:1-2, Num 16:35), dabble in astrology (Is 47:13-14), or make God angry (Ps 21:9) or jealous (Dt 32:21-24) or something. And sometimes God burns people to identify a prophet (2 Kg 1:10, 12) or to identify himself (Ezek 15:6-7), and sometimes for no reason at all (Is 24:6, 33:12).
And then, of course, God burns most people forever after they die (Jn 15:6, 2 Th 1:7-9, Rev 14:10-11, 21:8).
So yeah, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that God likes to watch people burn.
But maybe God (like a child-abusing parent) does nasty things for no good reason while making excuses for it.
I suppose it's possible. But it's much more likely that he doesn't exit. Thank goodness for that!
Sun Feb 26, 03:06:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
You're right, I spent years studying biblical texts (as well as a few non-biblical texts written during the same time-periods) and exegesis in a university, and I did read a lot of commentaries. I have only read one of these ones, but here are some references for you:
http://www.amazon.com/IVP-Bible-Background-Commentary-Testament/dp/0830814191/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1330306703&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Literary-Structure-Old-Testament-Genesis-Malachi/dp/0801027934/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1330306703&sr=8-14
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/top-5-commentaries-on-the-book-of-leviticus/
As for the verses you listed, once again, your belittling remarks are uninformed. The fact that God's fire is recorded as having consumed a number of the Israel people is true, but most of the reasons you listed were incorrect, and certainly the one about there being "no reason at all". That just reflects a misunderstanding about Isaiah. The same thing with your misunderstanding of the verses you cited about people "burning forever after they die" - though this is the "popular" view that has been perpetuated by figures such as Dante and other artists from the middle ages, this does not reflect an exegetical understanding of those passages and the language used. I understand though why you would believe this; Christianity has, in a sense, been "hijacked" by churches and pastors who themselves have relatively little knowledge about the scriptures and how they were originally understood. If you want to actually learn, talk to or read some scholarly material. You can't understand any texts written centuries ago and in different languages in our own, postmodern, individualistic, westernized mind frames. Gotta do some research. Unfortunately, people are lazy and will just accept whatever they hear or read.
I agree with you - the god you have in your mind does not exist!
Sun Feb 26, 06:12:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
Cormack,
I'm not asking for a list of amazon books. I'd like to see links to online books, papers, or websites that interpret Lev 20:14 in the way that you claim is common among scholars (or anyone else for that matter). A book would be fine too, but you'll have to provide chapter and verse.
While we're on the subject of burning people to death, take a look at Lev 21:9.
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
I suppose you interpret that one the same. "She shall be burned with fire. (Her dead body, that is. Stone her to death first; then burn her.)"
And when Judah commanded that his daughter-in-law be burned in Gen 38:24 (Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.), he probably meant it the same way too. ("Stone her to death first; then burn her.") Is that right?
Oh and it'd be really great for you to tell us why God burned to death all those people that I mentioned in my previous post. How about starting with Numbers 11:1? I'll quote it for you. (I know how much you like it when I quote scripture.)
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.
You say, "As for the verses you listed, once again, your belittling remarks are uninformed" and that "most of the reasons you listed were incorrect."
Well, I said that God burned people to death in Numbers 11:1. What was uninformed or incorrect about that?
Sun Feb 26, 07:14:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
I am wary of online resources, so I gave you books like the ones I used in school. Since I used my school's library and don't own the commentaries myself, I can't provide page number. However, if you want some online sources:
http://kad.biblecommenter.com/leviticus/20.htm
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/leviticus/leviticus-20.html
Also, I found here a response to something actually from your own "skeptic's bible" (but I haven't actually read it, so I can't attest to his credibility): http://thetheist.webs.com/atheist/burningalive.html
Same for Lev. 21:9. The verse you threw out there from Genesis 38 is different. Judah, in his anger, did demand that Tamar be burned to death (but she wasn't). This was not the law; the Law was given through Moses, and this was before Moses' time. It was just an angry impulse by Judah.
"Oh and it'd be really great for you to tell us why God burned to death all those people that I mentioned in my previous post."
I do not have to go through every single verse and try to defend them to you. Do your reading. Is it not enough that I'm even humoring you with these ones? I'll respond to your question about numbers 11:1 since you asked specifically, but I'm not going to go through the whole Bible with you. I don't have time for that, and I know you don't really care anyway. I'm not going to keep coming back here. You have some sources and I don't need to keep summarizing them for you when you can just as easily do your own research on your own time.
I did tell you in a previous comment that God himself did in fact at times consume people with fire (the Numbers verse is an example of this). God isn't another human being; this is descriptive not prescriptive. In other words, God is on a different level than we are - He created us and all the laws of the Universe. He can create and destroy (as He did with the great flood alluded to by many cultures); that's his prerogative.
As young children, we get pissed off or cry when our parents discipline us in a way we don't like. We don't always understand why they do the things they do until we become adults. Our minds are simply not mature enough to understand everything our parents do. The difference between what we (humans) can comprehend and the wisdom of God (creator) is a far greater difference even than that of child and father. God expects humans to treat one another a certain way (as ultimately revealed through Jesus), but He, being our creator, is not on the same level as other humans. He does things that seem extreme to us, and we can whine about it if we want but He has knowledge and understanding that we don't have, and He has reasons for things that are done that we cannot begin to comprehend. He created us. Everyone dies. He has every right to determine the meaning behind our deaths. In this instance, He had performed miracle after miracle to rescue the people from their abusive bondage in Egypt, gave them manna from the sky, and promised them a good land, yet they constantly complained that Egypt was better then their trip to this promised land. God put them out of their misery by killing some of them immediately, bringing them into paradise sooner than they would have, and also reminding those that were left that He is not just another human being. The rest who God didn't kill would be stuck travelling through the desert for years, complaining all along the way, and some of them would not even get to see the land anyway. They probably wished that God had just killed them in the fire as well.
At any rate, there's nothing to say that God "likes" that. In fact, there are plenty of verses that say that it grieves God when he does such things.
Perhaps the answer that the author of life also has the right to take life away when He chooses is not satisfying to you. If so, well, there's nothing I can do about that.
Mon Feb 27, 11:09:00 AM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
I think we're finally getting somewhere, Cormack. We agree on pretty much everything now, with the exception of the interpretation of Leviticus 20:14 and 21:9.
We agree, for example, that God burned people to death for complaining in Numbers 11:1. Our only disagreement is that you think it was a fine thing for God to do and you thank him for it, whereas I think it was evil.
It's fairly obvious that we agree on God's other burn victims too(Lev 10:1-2, Num 16:35, Is 47:13-14, Dt 32:21-24, 2 Kg 1:10-12, Ezek 15:6-7, Is 24:6, 33:12), though I guess you don't have time to make long excuses for them. (God made us, so he can do whatever the hell he wants to us for whatever reason he likes -- or for no reason at all.)
The links that you provided weren't very impressive. They made the same claim that you made with exactly the same evidence as you had -- zero.
But it has been fun talking to you, and I hope you'll stick around. Heck, you can even do a guest post if you want on one of God's killings. Pick your favorite one and tell us why you like it so much.
Mon Feb 27, 02:53:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
"Our only disagreement is that you think it was a fine thing for God to do and you thank him for it, whereas I think it was evil."
Lol... I don't know if it "was a fine thing" for God to do, and a lot of Christians also have a problem with it, but the relatively few examples we have of God doing things like that (perhaps a couple dozen in the whole OT, compared with the thousands and thousands of experiences of God's redemption and love, including coming to earth in the form of a human and experiencing suffering and death along with all of us) the God that we have experienced is one of love, grace, forgiveness, and redemption. Because of the overwhelming love we have experienced, we are able to acknowledge the tensions and the things that appear harsh, trusting that God has an understanding that we do not and knows what is best.
Your problem, it seems, is that you think we are entitled. You think the world revolves around you. When God creates, you take advantage of it, and when He destroys, you throw a fit. The fact is that all of us deserve to die... Everyone who continues to LIVE after the any of the crap they do is being shown grace by God, in spite of the utmost arrogance and self-righteousness of people. When people die, that is fair. When people live after all the crap they've done, that is a grace they don't deserve. Yet, it's our job to love one another (the example God gave for mankind through Jesus) because it's God's job, not ours, to judge or punish. (A fact that was different for the nation of Israel, who God intended first to reveal his power and holiness through.) You also think this life is all there is, when in fact it's nothing compared to eternity. So of course you're going to be pissed off when your sense of entitlement to it is threatened.
"The links that you provided weren't very impressive. They made the same claim that you made with exactly the same evidence as you had -- zero." That's why you've got to read a book, bro. These people spend their whole damn lives studying this stuff, and after a cursory glance at some stuff on the internet, you're going to say you know better?? How blatantly arrogant. If you want "evidence", don't look online - go read a commentary, lazy ass. Or better yet, learn Hebrew so you can read the ACTUAL text in Leviticus yourself.
Mon Feb 27, 05:18:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
Cormack,
I don't know if it "was a fine thing" for God to do.
So you think it was not a fine thing to do? You think it was wrong for God to burn people to death as he did in the 8 or so passages that I cited?
Hurray! We agree again. (God, I love it when you and I agree, Cormack.)
If we could just get that stoning/burning issue resolved, we'd agree on pretty much everything. But I guess we can leave it at that. You think that God told people to stone people to death and then burn their dead bodies in Lev 20:14 and 21:9 and I think he told them to do what these verses actually say to do: Burn them (alive). Either way, it's a horrible death; one you might expect from a Taliban god, but not from a good one.
Oh well, it's your god. I guess you're stuck with him.
Mon Feb 27, 07:57:00 PM 2012 
 Unknown said...
To say that the Bible is inspired and useful is not the same as saying it is correct in every detail. Since the Scriptures were copied by human (non-inspired) hands and by some self-interested parties it is unreasonable to assume that everything must be exactly correct. I think people have the word inspired mixed up with Dictated By. A poet or painter may be inspired by a sunset or a lover, a lawyer dictates a letter to a secretary. The painting and the poem are not expected to be exact replicas, otherwise we wouldn't call them inspired. The letter typed by the secretary is not inspired, and is therefore expected to be 100% accurate. Inspiration and accuracy are not only distinct, they can never, by nature, be found in the same place.
Wed May 16, 01:45:00 AM 2012 
 Ajrote Jboy said...
Hi Steve!
Here's some things to think about in sort of a broad reference to all of the questions your asking.
It says in scripture that God is both a loving God, and a just God. He created the heavens and the earth. He is the Alpha and omega and every knee will bow one day knowing Jesus is Lord.

I'm saying this to give a bit of background as to why some of these commands, as you said, are very brutal, there is a key thing to understand here.
We are alive because of God. And God created man so that we may have a beautiful, eternal relationship with him. But because of our Sin, God required Sacrifices to cleanse people of Sin in the OT. Our sacrifice today is Christ Jesus, which is why the Cross is so significant. Today there is no more need for a sacrifice, because the blood of Jesus is enough. That is just to demonstrate that while the OT is still relevant and useful today for learning and understanding how things unfolded, the law of the OT was created for a people who did not yet have their savior.

This brings me to a reason for such commands as you've talked about in Lev. This Loving, Just God knows how sin is like a disease, and can spread and cause disaster among people. In a world in which Jesus hadn't died for their sins yet, sinning had consequences. You see we all deserve death for our Sin. None of us have any right to enter the kingdom of God apart from the Grace of Jesus Christ.
Are these commands brutal? Answer: Yes
The point is God is showing just how incredibly devastating sin is in our life. (not because of the commands He gave as consequences of this sin, but because of how it separates His people from Him)

Now I'm sure this may still not be a completely satisfying answer. I really cant say I went to seminary or have done a lot of research about the OT. Nor am I saying I understand God's ways and reasoning.
But I just thought I would shoot my thoughts about this. just to let you know not every Christian is blindsided into just believing the Bible or not open to correction. There are plenty of valid, logical reasons to believe that this is the Word of God. I have yet to hear of a good explanation to it not being it.
I hope this was at least somewhat helpful.
Have a great night Steve,
-J
Mon Jul 02, 07:49:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
J, no point trying to reason with Steve. He asks Christians questions but then ignores their answers because they are Christians. He won't even study serious books about the questions he's asking by people who have dedicated their professional lives to studying Hebrew and Jewish religious history, simply because they are religious themselves. It's utterly meaningless to attempt to engage with Steve, imho. If he really wants to find the answers, he could study the resources himself. But clearly he doesn't; he just wants to fume.
Mon Jul 02, 11:16:00 PM 2012 
 Bhikkhu Ananda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sat Nov 24, 12:46:00 PM 2012 
 Bhikkhu Ananda said...
Isn't it amazing how long the almighty needed to come up with the solution, 'Jeeesus'? I am also surprised how many times believers give examples from human actions to explain the actions and motives of the almighty... so, they compare themselves with an almighty being. How arrogant, how stupid. There is no need to discuss with people so deranged. They rely on a mix of half-truths and self-delusion. Do they even have the slightest idea what death by stoning means? Of what do people die in stoning? It is also called death by torture and it is one of the most evil and defiled ways to kill a living being! And your almighty is just? What about sodomy: "The punishment of death, which was to be inflicted in all these cases upon both the criminals, and also upon the beast that had been abused" (http://kad.biblecommenter.com/leviticus/20.htm).... ***and also upon the beast that had been abused*** what justice is that? Punishing a beast? Punishing a victim, the one that had been abused? This is plainly evil!
Sat Nov 24, 12:56:00 PM 2012 
 Cormack said...
You don't do a great job at appearing credible when you interpret texts written thousands of years ago, in a language very different from yours and a culture very different from your own, in a face-valid, postmodern way. You clearly don't yet have the knowledge to interpret such ancient texts with any shred of literary authority. This blog is just a place to let off some steam about a very shallow understanding of religion. You'll notice that anyone with much actual understanding about this stuff doesn't even bother arguing with anyone here after a while. Even I've given up on that.
Sat Nov 24, 01:48:00 PM 2012 
 Steve Wells said...
Welcome back, Cormac!
(For a good time read Cormac's defense of Deuteronomy 13:6-10.) Cormac, you see, has "much actual understanding about this stuff."
Sat Nov 24, 02:01:00 PM 2012 
 darchaf said...
I recently studied this contradiction, and have found that in fact these two people mentioned are NOT the same.
2 Sam 23:8 "Josheb-basshebeth the tahchemonite was chief of the officers. (also translated as "The Three") He wielded his spsear agains 800 [men] he killed at one time"
1 Chron 11:11 " Jashobean son of Hachmoni, chief of the Thirty... wielded his spear against 300 and killed them at one time"

- Jashobean was chief of the Thirty, which were according to 1 chron 11:15 "The thirty chief men". So if we are to take the verse literally in a straightforward manner, Jashobeam was the head of the Thirty Chiefs.
- 2 Sam 23:8 states the word "Officers" which can also be translated from Hebrew as "The Three". When reading further into 2 sam 23 (verses 29 on), the author mentions two other great fighting men before moving into a story about David, thus showing us that Josheb-basshebeth, Eleazar (2 sam 23:9) and Shammah (2 Sam 23:11) were "The Three", who according to 2 Sam 23:13 were "3 of 30 leading warriors".
MAJOR CONFUSION:
- Josheb-basshebeth led "the Three", which were the best of David's warriors;
WHEREAS
- Jashobean was the Chief of the THIRTY
Thus, Josheb-basshebeth and Jashobean must have been different people and this is not a contradiciton.
Sun Jan 13, 04:57:00 AM 2013 
 Steve Wells said...
@darchaf,
So the Oxford Annotated Bible is wrong then and the chief of David's three killed both 300 and 800 men at one time with a spear.
In any case, it's an inspiring, if somewhat unbelievable, story.


Tue Jan 15, 10:19:00 AM 2013 
 anonymous said...
Thank you so much Cormack. I learned plenty from reading your comments. I believe I read other comments from you on some other blog. I need to study the bible and do my own *thorough* research. Thank you for the links. G*d bless you in all that you do. Also, do you have your own blog or website?
Fri Jan 25, 09:13:00 AM 2013 
 Cormack said...
Thanks, I'm glad others can see the importance of studying and the need to take into account all the factors of context before jumping to conclusions. I don't have a blog; I did a while back but unfortunately I don't have time to write these days outside of grad school. I'd be glad to talk though; all my accounts on other websites, and my e-mail address, are pretty straightforward (I have a pretty unique name apparently) so you can find me if you'd like to continue a conversation.
Tue Jan 29, 06:01:00 PM 2013 
 benJephunneh said...
Too easy, sir.
In my Bible, which doesn't use the Masoretic Text as its source for the Old Testament as the KJV, NIV, and RSV do, it has the following:
2 Sam 23:8:
"These are the names of David's worthies.
"Jebosthe, the Chananite, a chief of the third rank, who is also called Adinon the Asonite. This man drew his sword against eight hundred warriors at one time."
1 Chron. 11:11:
"And this is the number of David's worthies. Jesebada son of Achaman, the first of thirty. He drew his sword once against three hundred men who were slain at one time."
Note the different names and their different positions in the ranks. I needn't belabor the point that this isn't a contradiction *in my Bible*. Obviously, we're at the mercy of the translators if we're unable to translate it ourselves, in which case we can be misled, just as much as a translation of any book can lead to difficulty.
Fri Feb 01, 09:15:00 PM 2013 
 Integrated Combative Concepts said...
Let's get to the truly ridiculous part- one man stands with a spear against 800 men in one event and slays them all? I have studied Martial Arts for 38+ years. In all my time, not even the best fighters or teachers whom have studied and trained most of their life and have done so under rigorous testing could hold their own, even with a spear against 8 trained men, much less 80, or 800! What utter bullshit! 800 men could swarm any man with a spear (although they may take some injuries or some be killed) those 800 men would get that spear-wielder. If the Bible is to be believed on this, then why was there a need for an Army...as just ten spirit juiced men could wipe out enemies numbering close to 100,00'! The point here is there is no Logic nor Reason whatsoever from the beginning to the end of the Bible. Modern day folks that should know better, but still believe this crap do so out of fear of being singled out by their fellow believers and they do the same so the myths just keep getting perpetrated over and over as the masses just grow more and more ignorant...yet there is light to be seen over the horizon as more and more break from these ridiculous traditions...however it may be too late as so much damage has already been done to this World, Religion seems to be breaking of into deadlier strains each and every day.
Sat May 11, 02:38:00 AM 2013 
 John Y. said...
I have nothing to contribute, other than to say thank you: To Cormack, for some great reading. To Steve, for being the catalyst by which they happened. I pray you'll join us one day brother.
Sat May 25, 11:07:00 AM 2013 
 Chris Miller said...
To Cormack (and also Ajrote, John Y., and the rest of his cheering section):
You seem to misunderstand where the burden of proof lies here, and as a result your attitude is rather condescending and offputting. You seem to think you don't have to "try to defend" every single verse to skeptics, and that you're "humoring" Steve and his readers by bothering to explain even as much as you do.
This is, perhaps, understandable in light of your clear (and self-proclaimed) training in Christian apologetics, a discipline full of finely-honed techniques for getting people to believe unspeakably irrational things while rejecting logic, evidence, and basic ethical principles. It inverts your worldview.
But the fact is, the burden is all on your shoulders. You're the one making the extraordinary claims here, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
After all, there are two possible approaches to a book like the Bible: 1) This is all a bunch of bronze-age mythology; the "God" character at the center of it is obviously fictional; and it has nothing of value to offer by way of truth claims about either the physical universe or human behavior. Occam's Razor pretty much compels that approach, but if, as an alternative, 2) just for the sake of argument we accept the proposition that "God" exists, then his defenders have a whole lot of explaining to do to justify why anyone should accept him as anything other than petty, irrational, and monstrous.
So that's your burden to bear. As a believer, it falls to you to explain why God has an understanding of law, morality, and science that is precisely as sophisticated as that of bronze-age goatherders, and not one bit more; and, concomitantly, why anyone today should give him any attention whatsoever, much less obedience or worship.
Props to you, at least, for acknowledging that the Bible is a human-written, error-ridden document, and that morality is not universal across all times and places; those two concessions are a lot more than most self-proclaimed Christians are willing to make. However, neither one of them does anything to bolster your claims about God. Yet instead of approaching the task with humility and careful reasoning, you pile one implausibility on top of another, until the end result is utterly absurd, an insult to any intelligent reader.
You speak of God as creator of the universe, of life, and of humanity, a project he undertook (per Ajrote) so that we could "have a beautiful, eternal relationship with him" (was he lonely?). In your words, he wanted us to enjoy love, peace, and joy.
Yet how did he pursue these ends? Answer: in the most indirect and convoluted way imaginable, through means virtually guaranteed to confuse and alienate people rather than win them over.
First of all, he waited millions (or if you're a creationist, thousands) of years before "revealing" himself. Then he did so only to one family of itinerant herdsmen in one barely civilized corner of the planet (which you handwave away with a "for whatever reason"), and through them sets up a nation on which he imposed a "covenant" (basically a one-sided contract of adhesion) full of obscure laws that even you admit were so burdensome that even his chosen people never succeeded at obeying them consistently.
All this he did despite wanting (you say) to reveal himself to "the surrounding nations" (apparently other continents didn't count) as the One True God. But it's really never clear why he's such a ruthlessly jealous being in the first place, insisting on such strict obedience and worship. You say "it is wrong to disobey God" — indeed, disobeying God is the very definition of "sin" — but you admit that you can't explain why. He has his reasons, he has "knowledge and understanding that we don't have," so we just have to take him at face value.
(continued...)
Sun Jul 07, 12:22:00 AM 2013 
 Chris Miller said...
(part 2)
Why were his laws so burdensome? So his chosen people would stand out to nonbelievers. And what was his approach to "revealing" himself to those nonbelievers? Why, to have his chosen people defeat them in battle. Yeah, because *that'll* always win people over. Conquered populations are always quick and happy to adopt the belief systems of their conquerors, right?
Did it ever occur to God to just try, y'know, *talking* to them? Maybe revealing himself to everybody at once? Maybe offering a set of rules that was consistent for everybody and that actually made some moral sense instead of being insanely burdensome and unforgiving? Maybe that way he could've gotten to all the "love and peace" without so much hatred and bloodshed along the way.
Why wouldn't a loving, omnipotent, omniscient God have granted all humanity (never mind just a tiny subgroup) some actual helpful wisdom, like, say, the germ theory of disease or Newtonian mechanics? Why not try mentioning the whole "love thy neighbor" thing up front and making it clear that slavery wasn't cool, rather than dictating the exact opposite for so many centuries? None of that would've interfered with "free will" at all; it would've just enhanced his credibility and improved quality of life all around.
But that wasn't his approach, and we are not to question his ineffable plan. Because of all that "knowledge and understanding"... none of which is actually in evidence in the Bible. In fact, we actually understand a *lot* more now about the physical world, human behavior, and moral philosophy than anybody could possibly glean from the Bible, which is limited to the preconceptions of those abovementioned goatherders.
But none of that matters because the old rules don't apply today anyway, you say, because "all was fulfilled" by Jesus. That phrase is about as opaque as it's possible to get — what does it even mean for a law to be "fulfilled"? — and the notion that "God requires sacrifices to cleanse people of sin" (as Ajrote reminds us) has never made a lick of sense either. and reflects nothing but sheer bloodthirstiness.
Yet despite all this, you insist that "the author of life also has the right to take life away when he chooses"... that's "his prerogative." (You say this right after analogizing him to a loving parent, yet this is a right no parent would ever assert.) And if this is "not satisfying to us" then "there's nothing [you] can do about that."
Well, if there's nothing you can do, then you've failed at your entire mission here, because justifying that kind of behavior was the entire thing you were setting out to do.
The fact is, we owe no obligation to any alleged "creator" (any more than a child does to parents; the moral obligations flow the other way!), and nobody simply "deserves to die"; on the contrary, we are indeed "entitled" (as you put it) to certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If God actually existed, and tried to stand in the way of those rights, then God would be deserving of nothing but contempt. Simple as that.

Sun Jul 07, 12:23:00 AM 2013 
 Cormack said...
Chris Miller:
I am aware of the burden of proof, and I am aware I can't prove the existence of God to any of you; that was never my purpose. Scientific theories and methods were constructed by us for the purpose of understanding the world we live in, and I value it for that purpose. Our concept of "proof" has developed within this framework and therefore can only function within this same framework. We can learn amazing things about the natural, physical world using the scientific method, but it can tell us nothing about the existence of things outside the natural, physical world, if indeed such things do exist.
If someone is looking for a conversation about how to prove the existence of a God, they should look elsewhere because I have no intention of doing so. Like most everything else in the philosophical realms, both parties have to start at a place of some agreement before any meaningful conversation can occur.
If one wishes to challenge the way a group or individual understands God, there can be no meaningful conversation unless both parties BEGIN with the assumption that a God of some kind does indeed exist (at least for the sake of argument). If one is asked to essentially "prove God", then the conversation is no longer about the character of God or any Biblical understanding about God, because that individual has essentially "begged the question". The Biblical writers believed in God, so in order to engage with their material one must grant that idea from the get-go.
One of my original purposes was, as you pointed out, to provide some justification for the Biblical concept of God. I stopped caring to do so for a number of reasons, but mostly because it has become apparent that this is clearly not the forum to go in order to engage with those who are seriously interested in such conversations. The information is out there already, and I have explained where someone can find such material, but no one has cared to do so. I prefer to spend my time instead engaging with individuals on forums or blogs where they are serious about having such a conversation rather than simply venting or airing their own justifications for disbelief, which I've found to be uninformed in the very areas this blog seeks to create dialogue about.
Mon Jul 08, 06:03:00 PM 2013 
 Cormack said...
Chris:
Now about your "two approaches to a book like the Bible".
1) Mythology; the "God" character at the center of it is fictional (though even if this is the case, it can be easily argued that it still does hold value on a number of different levels),
2) God does exist and defenders are challenged to justify why anyone should accept him as, basically, "good".
For the second one, there is already a wealth of good information out there; books and books written by those who defend the concept of the Biblical God who are far smarter, more intelligent, more learned, who know more languages and have more degrees on more topics than anyone here. Serious engagement requires serious reading (another recommendation would be any book about Judeo-Christian scriptures by N.T. Wright, a leading theologian well-respected by almost every other scholar in his field(s), religious and non-religious alike).
Mon Jul 08, 06:57:00 PM 2013 
 Cormack said...
(2)
To address some of your other points:
"First of all, he waited millions (or if you're a creationist, thousands) of years before 'revealing' himself." Actually, the earliest recorded history suggests that God had already revealed himself to us to some degree. And if we can learn anything about God by looking at nature, it would be that God is someone/something who values time and process; revealing things to us at times appropriate to history.
You poke fun at the Judaic belief that God had helped them in battle as a way of "revealing himself" to surrounding nations. The revelation was not simply in the victory (and they clearly failed to win many of their battles) but in what that victory meant. The people would have been wiped out by other nations if they did not succeed in battle, and that would have meant that the things God promised them would have been clearly wrong. The fact that God's promises to them were not wrong (in spite of overwhelming odds at times and even situations requiring miracles), however, would demonstrate to the surrounding nations that this God was, in fact, real. This is how the world worked back then; the God with the most respect would be the one whose prophecies came true. "Did it ever occur to God to just try, y'know, *talking* to them?" That's precisely what God did; God talked not only to the Hebrew prophets but some of those in other nations as well. Why didn't God "talk" to everyone at once, all at the same time? For that matter, why didn't God just reveal himself from the very beginning? (Oh wait, the Biblical God did...) Well why didn't God do it again, for everyone else as they reached an age where their brains would be capable of understanding? Why didn't God reveal himself to everyone else later on in history? Should God reveal himself to every single person, and if so, how, and at what age, etc. Would it have really stopped wars? It is obviously a very complicated topic, and it has been discussed at length in theological literature that you would seek out if you were serious enough. My simple suggestion is that God ultimately is one who respects what you said we are "entitled" to have: Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (I would argue life isn't something we are "entitled" to except to the degree that it is given to us, but that we certainly aren't inherently entitled to take it away from others.) God respects the liberty humankind has to make choices and decisions, and to think and presume we know better, to seek what we believe will make us happy even if it means ultimately denying the Creator or hurting one another. You said yourself that if God actually existed and tried to stand in the way of those rights, then God would be deserving of nothing but contempt. And God doesn't stand in the way of our "rights" - as horrible as that has turned out to be for many of us. Instead God (who is inherently outside of the system of rules/laws that govern us) modeled for us the way we SHOULD treat one another when God in some sense became human, like we are. God as a creator is inherently outside our bounds, but God as human would be expected to follow the same moral code God expects of us, and (in the Biblical canon, whose framework for God we are talking about) Jesus DID do that.
Mon Jul 08, 06:57:00 PM 2013 
 Lettie131 said...
@teavee
@Steve Wells
I have not read ALL the comments. Just coming to the conversation fresh. So in answer to the Genesis 8:4/5 question...they are both correct!
Sound stupid? Think scientifically.
Water covers the whole earth.
Wooden boat floats.
Many animals and food etc on board weigh it down.
Several feet of the boat (hands if you want to use biblical language) are beneath the water.
Rain stops.
Winds blow.
Water evaporates.
Tops of mountain hit bottom of boat.
Boat stuck up a mountain.
Mountain tops still not seen.
More winds blow.
More water evaporates.
Mountain tops can now be seen.
So where is this contradiction?
Let's not be brainless when we read the bible!
Sat Nov 16, 06:09:00 AM 2013 
 Lettie131 said...
The bible is many books (66), written by many different people (some of the books are compilations by many writers like Psalms and Proverbs), over more than 4000 years. Some will have used historical books of the times for getting the "correct" numbers in their writing, but that all depends on who wrote these history books. We know from recent history that depending on the side the historian took you will get different answers! Look at the history from Macabee and Josephus to see what I mean
Sat Nov 16, 06:46:00 AM 2013 
 Buddha Amitabha & Western Pure Land said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sat Dec 21, 04:01:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sat Dec 21, 04:06:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
1) How come the Almighty and Omnipotent God cannot prevent good Christians and young innocent good Christian kids from dying young, including from accidents and crimes, if He were so omnipotent, almighty, and powerful? (Newtown shooting, CT, US, Sandy Hook Elementary, 12/24/2012). How can I trust the Almighty and Omnipotent God to protect my young innocent children, my family, and my loved ones? Jesus and the Holy Spirit did not (decide to) stop or thwart the shooting deaths neither. Or maybe they are just not omnipotent, almighty, and all-powerful after-all, or maybe they just don't really care that much. They don't really care if your kids just die.
‎2) How come God just sits in heaven and enjoys paradise while all of us humans have to suffer the unjust and unfortunate miseries and sufferings of life? These sufferings are very real to us. A lot of good Christians die young in accidents and robberies. This God appears nonchalant, arrogant, and unjust. Was He bored or lonely? He created humans and doomed like half of them to hell. (The word "half" here is used figuratively speaking - a figure of speech - it is not used to refer to an exact quantity value but refer to the non-Christians).
3) Why do we have to pay for the sins of Adam and Eve; I didn't eat that apple? Where is the logic and fairness from God?
4) Why does God create people and then predestined some of them to hell to burn for eternity? Why did God create us in the first place? Well, He created us and let half of us doomed to hell by His predestination. When He created us, He already know we won't choose Him and will burn in Hell for eternity. What fun logic...? What a nice father... He created non-Christians just so He can watch creations be burnt in hell for eternity.
5) How come a law-abiding atheist or homosexual who lives a secular philanthropic and humanitarian life is condemned to hell if s/he does not accept Christ, while a prison inmate who had committed murders, killed cops, and raped many children (with lifelong PTS on the children) can still go to heaven by mere repentance at death-chair, however sincere the repentance was?
‎6) If God were so powerful, why does He allow all the natural disasters like the plagues (like the black death in the medieval times), earthquakes, tsunami's, Newtown shooting, etc., to occur, and so many innocent children died? How can I trust the Almighty and Omnipotent God to protect my children, my family, and my loved ones?
‎7) If God were perfect, why did he fail to create a better but defective angel Satan (the Devil) who has caused a lot of problems?
‎8) God cannot be said to be omnipotent if He cannot dictate humans' choices. If He can by predestination and divine force, how is that humans have free will? There is no logical answer to this Christian beliefs of free will and predestination that can make any logical sense. And why is God not intervening to save innocent children's deaths everyday around the world and in the third-world countries? If he intervenes where is the free will? If God is truly compassionate, why did He need to test men?
9) If God is truly compassionate, why did He need to test men? If I were God, I would do everything to prevent men from falling into hell, whether they worship me or not. But no, God needs to be validated by His creation to fill his ego, his vanity, his void, his need. God needs to be worshipped, and Jesus needs to be validated as a "Saviour" or else He won't save you. What EGOS are these... How needy are these beings... So limited and conditional a religion. Isn't that kinda needy for a "God" and very demanding for a "Saviour" to ask of puny men? How is this God unconditional at all...? What about the phrase "unconditional love" that even ordinary humans can understand and do...?
Sat Dec 21, 04:10:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
10) Please don't give me the analogy of "God is the Father hence He knows better." Andrea Yates, Case Anthony, and many other "parents" made no sense and murdered their own children. What makes you think God is any better other than the indoctrination you lazily accept from church that God is the "perfect" parent, Creator. Who can prove that? Look at the mess on Earth. (Some says humans made the mess; oh well, God made the humans...)
11) It is shallow that a lot of Christians know nothing about other religions but label them as "Satanic" or false idol-worship. How can you review a novel if you have not read the novel. Similarly, how can a Christian judge other religions when s/he knows nothing in-depth about other religions? It is a sign of lack of education and of blind ignorance. These Christians are most annoying - not to mention I see statues of idols of Jesus and Mary everywhere. Isn't that idol-worshipping!?
12) Where did all the people before Christ go? Hell? The ancient civilizations of the Chinese, Aztecs, Indians, Native Americans, etc., for the history of mankind, all these and a lot of cultures and civilizations had not encountered Christ and millions and millions of them died. Are they in hell now since they did not proclaim Christ as the ONLY Savior?
13) Why did God create humans? Was He lonely? Half of His creation are damned to Hell to suffer real pain. He is not good with creating stuff. Just look at the mess on Earth; everyday massive people suffers agonies because God wants us to.
14) God created men in His image. Men are imperfect. God must also be imperfect. Also, if God is so perfect, why didn't he have the ability or wisdom to create more perfect or better men. The thought of a God creating men and then with no good sound fair reason make half of them to suffer hell-fire for eternity (God shouldn't have create in the first place) - the thought of such God watching half of his creation (-children-) suffering is just appalling. Also, Kids are born in third-world countries everyday and die from hunger everyday, and I don't see God do a thing about it. This God is supposedly merciful and compassionate; you must be kidding me?
Most Christians live in the lazy fallacious mind-set that "I am still alive hence God is good." Well, the good but dead Christians have no voice anymore to ask, "God I had been pure (I am a kid) why am I dead?"
15). How come God allowed Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting to happen on 12/24/2012 (Newtown, CT, USA)? If God were omnipotent, why did He not prevent it? If God is really almighty and all-powerful (omnipotent), why did He not stop the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that took 20 children's lives (and 6 adult teaching staff)... He could easily prevented it if He were all-powerful, but He did not stop it. The children were young and innocent Christians from a Christian town of Christian families. God did not stop it. How can I trust God to protect my loved ones or my children.

Sat Dec 21, 04:11:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Why is it that there is so much confusion and contradictions in the Bible to make me have doubts? I think God wants me to burn in hell for eternity. God likes to watch people burn and die and not do a thing.
I heard somewhere saying that God is like a kid with an ant farm. He lights matches and burns ants for pure fun fancy.
Sat Dec 21, 04:23:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sat Dec 21, 04:29:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
I think I am one of them that when God created me, He already decided that I am going to burn in hell anyways when he made me. He wanted to watch me be an atheist and damned by Christians. Predestination and fate.
After all, God's probably bored in heaven watch people sing and dance, I mean, I would too. It's fun for Him to make some people to burn in hell, to watch people burn in hell, and not do a thing about it. God likes to watch his creation, his children burn. It is the ultimate show of "omnipotence" to see your own creation/children burn. This is called real power. Almost no one in this Earth has that kind of power.
Hold on... wait a minute, God sounds kinda like the Devil to me now... putting him this way.
Oh No! This is confusing. Bible, the Devil-God.
Sat Dec 21, 04:32:00 AM 2013 
 Cormack said...
Cloud, if you REALLY wanted to find answers to some of those questions, you wouldn't be looking for them on an anti-Christian blog, you would study several works by Old/New Testament scholars or Theology doctors. (I've mentioned where you might start in one of my previous posts.) No, you're just here to vent on the ridiculousness of the Sunday-School God you've been taught about growing up. You don't really care about answering those questions (indeed, you probably believe they can't be answered, but that reflects a very concrete, shallow conceptual understanding). Suffice to say, the God you are talking about is not the God I believe in either.
Sat Dec 21, 06:19:00 PM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
There are no historical accounts of “Jesus”, there are only a handful of historical accounts of “Christ”, after his death, but “Christ” is not a name, “Christ” is a title. Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, which is a title meaning "The Anointed One".
The name Jesus is also Greek. If Christ existed he would not be named Jesus, as there’s no J in the Hebrew alphabet.
The name Jesus stems from the Greek God Zeus. This is why Mexicans call Jesus, HaZeus. So when you pray to Jesus, you are praying to Zeus. The name YH-Zeus comes from merging the Jewish god YHVH and the Greco-Roman god Zeus. In comparison the popular first century Egyptian god, Serapis, was the result of merging the gods Osiris and Apis. The English "Jesus" comes from the Latin transliteration of the Greek name into the Latin Iesus. Now Greek has no "y" sound, but the Latin "i" is both an "i" and a "j".
Thus YHWH becomes YH-Zeus,which becomes Hazeus, which becomes Iesus, which becomes Jesus.
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, thus becomes, “the anointed Yh-Zeus of Nazareth”.
Also the story of Jesus was heavily influenced by Re-Harmakhis(Ra-Horus at the horizon), as well as other Pagan religions. Christianity at its core is a perversion of Atenism.
Sun Dec 22, 12:40:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Horus (Hor) was a sky and solar god and was one of the oldest gods in the Nile Valley.
Mary comes from the Egyptian word "Meri" meaning "beloved". Isis's title was the beloved, making her name, Isis-Meri. Isis stood for motherhood, love, magic, children, medicine and peace. Isis was Horus's mother.
Horus's father was Osiris. Osiris was king of the afterlife and originally a god of agriculture and nature. He was the chief judge in the court in the Underworld, where all the dead citizens were trying to come through to Paradise.
The "Myth of Osiris" is about his death (murdered by his brother Set) and resurrection.
Set was a god of storms and disorder from Upper Egypt.
In the Myth of Osiris, Set killed Osiris out of envy. Isis asked the sun god Ra to resurrect Osiris. Osiris was resurrected for 1 day. In that one day Osiris impregnated Isis, in which she gave birth to Horus, in a cave. Set took the form of a snake and bit Horus attempting to kill him, but the God of wisdom, Thoth, saved Horus. Isis hid Horus until he was fully grown. When Horus was full grown he searched for Set, in order to avenge his father’s murder.
By fighting Set who had killed his father Osiris, Horus defeated all evilness in the world (symbolically).
Re (Ra) was the solar god and a major deity all over Egypt. He stood for the rising sun, life, rebirth, children, health, virility, and ect.
Horus was often fused with Ra to create Re-Horakhte. Horus was also seen as a manifestation of Ra.
Sun Dec 22, 12:42:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Re-Horakhte, meaning "Re-Horus at the horizon" was a combination of the sun god Re from Lower Egypt and Horakhty who was an aspect of Horus from Upper Egypt.
From Re-Horakte, we get the story of the birth, death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We also get the holy Trinity, the devil, and salvation.
Around 1340 BC, the pharaoh Amenhotep IV declared that just a single deity should be worshipped, named Aten. Unlike other Gods, Aten had no human form. Aten was praised mainly by hymns, poems and offerings of fruit and flowers.
In one of the Hymns to Aten, in the 14th century BC, it sings about a trinity, with Re, Aten, and Ptah.
Ptah was the creator god, and was called "The First of Gods". He was the patron of all craftsmen especially the smiths. Among some other gods he was creator of mankind, and could create life by just using words. He stood for good moral and order. He was said to have created Atum, and thus was responsible for creation of the World.
Atum, meaning "The Completed One" was a creator god and was the first to rise from the water Nun at the dawn of time. He created everything and thus became the first god on earth. His body was considered the parts of all physical matter. Atum was also a aspect of Re, just as Horakhte was an aspect of Horus.Mostly Atum was depicted as a man.
Sun Dec 22, 12:44:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Ptah thus is the creator.
Osiris is the father
Atum is Adam
Re-Horakte is Jesus
Isis is Mary
Aten is the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore Ptah was often combined with the falcon god Sokar, to create Ptah-Sokar. By the middle kingdom, which lasted from 2055 BC to 1650 BC, Ptah-Sokar became fused with Osiris, becoming Ptah-Sokar-Osiris.
This merges the stories of Ptah, and Osiris, further unifying the stories of Re and Horus.
Furthermore, the Christian cross comes from the Egyptian ankh, which is the symbol of life. The roman crucified people on a cross that looked like a capital T, not a lowercase t. The Christian cross is more an ankh than a crucifixion.
Sun Dec 22, 12:45:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Christianity is a perversion of the ancient Egyptian religion, which is nothing more than myth. The pope is a newer version of the Egyptian Pharaoh, and is, or at least was considered God on Earth, by canonists.
Sun Dec 22, 12:51:00 AM 2013 
 Cormack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sun Dec 22, 02:25:00 PM 2013 
 Cormack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sun Dec 22, 02:27:00 PM 2013 
 Cormack said...
(A couple typos and poor wording in my previous posts but I couldn't edit them so I decided to delete and re-post.:)
Cloud, copying and pasting the argument of one person from another website ( http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Buddhism-is-more-valid-than-Christianity/1/ ) is not the same as studying the work of scholars to find the answers to your questions. Again, you don't really want your questions answered or don't believe any answers exist.
A Christlike understanding of God is that there is one God, who has connected in various ways to different peoples and cultures all throughout time and history. God, the creator, has been know in varying degrees by cultures all around the world, though knowledge of God is often perverted by religion (no matter what the religion). So of course there is overlap with other religions. However, there are unique inferences that can be made about much of the NT writing that set it apart from other religious texts at the time and contribute to its sincerity and validity on certain levels. This you would understand if you studied the work of biblical scholars. There are works from Christian and non-Christian biblical scholars for you to study, but I don't believe you will because you've demonstrated you don't REALLY want answers or don't really care.
Books have been written; I can't respond to your questions in a forum like this without oversimplifying, so if the answers to those questions really mattered to you, you'd pursue them in a legitimate way rather than finding outlets like this to vent your frustration.
Sun Dec 22, 02:29:00 PM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Thank you, Cormack, for your response.
Simply one out of the 15 questions not answered by you: the fact that an Omnipotent God allowing the Sandy Hook shooting of innocent children to occur is very difficult for me to swallow.
To me, for now, Christianity is just a round-about religion: people (scholars) try to prove theories with newly make-up theories, and people making changes on the Bible interpretation to fit the grim reality. Sandy Hook shooting of innocent kids is real and God/Christ/Holy-Ghost permit it to happen, with no intervention.
The Bible indicates that God is a jealous, vengeful, and wrathful God - vindictive, ruthless, and omnipotent, an iron-handed most supreme monarch ruling us with fear and by fear.
For now, I need to get away from his vengefulness, wrath, vindictiveness, massacres, and ruthless killings (of infants, children, etc.)
I will go read some Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucius texts for now.
Perhaps when the Bible OT/NT/NewNT has changed and reinvented by men enough so that God is worthy of worshipping, I will become a Christian.
For now, strictly from what you offered here, let me study karma, reincarnation, Buddha, Krishna, Socrates, Einstein, Plato, and science.
Have a great Christmas!
Sun Dec 22, 06:42:00 PM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Although I copied and pasted, I have read the argument points and agree with the arguments.
Here is also Copy and Paste:
Bible Study
GENESIS 6 & 7 Unhappy with the wickedness of man, God killed every living thing on the planet except Noah’s family. Men, women, infants and animals drowned in unimaginable terror and agony.
GENESIS 38: 8-10 – Onan was instructed by Judah to lay with his brother’s wife to produce offspring for his brother (who was put to death by God for wickedness). Onan slept with his brother’s wife but "spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother" (NIV). God found this wicked, so God killed him.
EXODUS 2:12 Moses saw an Egyptian beating up a Hebrew. He looked around, saw no witnesses, killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
EXODUS 9:10 God sent a plague of festering boils on the people and animals.
EXODUS 9:22-25 God sent a hail storm to Egypt, striking man and animal, stripping the land.
EXODUS 12: 29 God killed the first-born in every Egyptian home that wasn’t marked with lamb’s blood.
EXODUS 32:27 After seeing the golden calf, God commanded the Levites, "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor." 3,000 were slaughtered, and God was pleased.
LEVITICUS 26:22 God warned that, if the people didn’t listen to Him, he would send wild animals to rob parents of their children, destroy cattle and leave the roads deserted.
LEVITICUS 26:27-29 God threatened hostility, punishing people for their sins "seven times over," making them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters.
NUMBERS 12:9-14 God was displeased with Miriam, so he struck her with leprosy and banished her from the camp for seven days.
NUMBERS 15:32-36 A man gathered sticks for a fire on the Sabbath. By God’s command, he was stoned to death.
NUMBERS 16:35 A fire from God killed 250 men.
NUMBER 16:48 A plague from God killed 14,700.
NUMBERS 21:6 God sent venomous snakes, which bit and killed many Israelites.
NUMBERS 25:9 A plague from God killed 24,000.
NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." The virgins were presumably raped. (NOTE: How could the soldiers know which women were virgins?)
DEUTERONOMY 2:33-34 Under God’s leadership, the Israelites utterly destroyed the men, women and children of Sihon. "…we left no survivors."
DEUTERONOMY 20:13-14 God laid down the rules for battle, instructing the slaughter of all of the men. Women, children, livestock and possessions could be taken as "plunder for yourselves."
DEUTERONOMY 28:53 God’s punishment for disobedience included eating "the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you."
Sun Dec 22, 06:43:00 PM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Cormack,
I actually wanted to find answers about life, meaning, about the world, and "the truth", unlike what you believe about me. Otherwise why would I did extensive Internet research on different religions and different perspectives. If I did not want answers, why would I sat down and read the OT/NT and came up with 15 vital, essential, fundamental, important questions. I come upon this and other sites as I care to search and see both pros and cons from both sides.
Not to mean any personal insults, a lot of Christian scholars write stuff to keep their job to keep money keep coming in for themselves and their families and don't really care about the truth, whether Christianity is really true.
The Christian scholars are the ones not care anymore.
They are already "sucked in" and stuck, can't find other jobs for making a living.
And Jesus was where during his Lost Years?
These are just my opinions.
Steve Wells of this thread is a legitimate scholar to me.
Please don't let me spoil your Christmas. Merry Christmas! :-)
Sun Dec 22, 07:01:00 PM 2013 
 Cormack said...
Cloud,
Thank you for your thoughtfulness - happy holidays to you too!
This will probably be my last post for you; if you truly cared about what the biblical message is you can study it yourself from the sources who understand it best, as I have done. I understand that you may want to find answers about life... I am only suggesting that you do not really care to find answers about the actual biblical message (as understood the way they were intended to be understood when they were written). You can continue to search for your answers to life; I am only saying that unless you really study the biblical* texts, you have very poor grounds for criticizing them.
"Not to mean any personal insults, a lot of Christian scholars write stuff to keep their job to keep money keep coming in for themselves and their families and don't really care about the truth, whether Christianity is really true."
Yeah? And where did you learn about this? Did you study their lives or their work? Do counselors really want to bring emotional healing to people, or do they just want to make money? Do nurses really want to help people feel better, or keep the money coming in? Do Dentists really want to fix teeth, or just make money? There are much better ways of making money than becoming a scholar. Biblical scholars must learn languages such as ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic. They study Linguistics, so they can identify the different authors' writing style to identify which books were likely written by the same people or any segments that may not have been in the original texts; they make very little money unless they publish books, which take a lot of work. There are much better and easier ways to make money, if that is all they care about. Your opinion about biblical scholars demonstrates that you have not really invested much time into learning about them. There is a variety of opinions withing the field, but I guarantee that every one of them is more informed than yours. Certainly there are a handful of scholars that are only interested in money or in their own agenda, but the fact that you believe such a blanket statement about Biblical scholars in general shows how little you have actually studied what they do.
Your impression of the Bible indicating a "wrathful, vindictive, ruthless, iron-handed monarch" who is "ruling us with fear and by fear" also suggests you have not actually studied the bible anymore than the average churchgoer or sunday-school kid (or internet blogger); your understanding of context, language, and interpretation of biblical texts is naive and overly simplistic. Again, I would urge you to actually seriously study what it is you criticize. You don't even take the texts seriously enough to read them in their cultural context.
As for the problem of evil, events like the Sandy Hook shooting are difficult for everyone to swallow. The Problem of Evil is something that all Theists have always wrestled with. For whatever reason, God has limited God's own power in order to allow us to truly have free will/volition; God has chosen for us not to be "puppets", and has respected since the beginning our God-given ability to make our own choices. It is true that we have the capability for great evil, but we
also have the ability for great good. God is constantly inspiring those who listen, to be a force of good in the world, and all of the best religions pick up on this sense (though most unfortunately distort it as well).
"Perhaps when the Bible OT/NT/NewNT has changed and reinvented by men enough so that God is worthy of worshipping, I will become a Christian."
The Bible OT/NT has not been "changed"; (though it has been translated to several languages) and will not be changed. However, the God it speaks of is one that, when the biblical message is understood, is very beautiful and worthy of worship. So if your opinion is anything different, you are probably missing the point.
Have a wonderful New Years!
-Cormack.
Wed Dec 25, 10:22:00 AM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Dear respectable Cormack,
Thank you for your time. I can see that, in your belief, you are trying to save my soul from hell. For that, I thank you for your truly genuine intention. Now, I must go back to contending your fallacious and false belief. Thank you.
If you think it is okay to have massive people and children and infants burning in hell fire in painful torture for eternity, (speaking even as of right now, in hell), and the Christians, the selected and predestined, and perhaps some of them would think to themselves, the smarter and chosen ones, are entitled to go to heaven, and from there, just watch the rest burn in hell, perhaps just watch, hopefully not rejoicing, or celebrating, and hopefully, not dancing, about that, in heaven, for eternity... Sir respectable... It is not a good picture to look up. I don't think you are a person capable of that. I think you neglect this picture of your religious belief. From your writing, I see that you have a better heart than that. Let me continue:
Tue Dec 31, 10:30:00 PM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
I contend that your Christ knows nothing about love, for he had, is, and will leaving souls behind in hell in torture, in hell-fire, for eternity. A lot of LGBT and atheists are the best souls I've ever seen, and also the Hindus and Buddhists, who are non-believers of Christ or God. The religion you believe in has a god who made a very disturbing game of needless cruelty - which is what I see as the fallacy of your religion. For Jesus to teach about "love thy neighbor", but forsake countless souls in hell and hell-fire for eternity. And that, the "game gaining point" is to have faith in a god of cruelty and nonsense. Any one who sees that clear picture would think that your god should need to re-evaluate what he had done, perhaps his decision was far from perfect.
Because of your heavy indoctrination from early, let me try to clear up better in the next post, if you really want to see the truth better, unlike most Christian scholars who somehow missing the -huge- point:
Tue Dec 31, 10:41:00 PM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Perhaps I over-estimated the general Christian scholars' spiritual quotient (as in IQ, EQ, AQ, SQ). I am sorry, the general Christian scholars, you mentioned, I met, their SQ, I must say, is low. I coined SQ.
For that, I guess they are not for money, but for true faith. I apologize, sincerely, deeply, to those who are real faithful. I am sorry. Bad karma on me.
You are smart.
Let's cut to the point.
Your God decided the decisive factor is -faith-.
Faith to God, Christ, or Holy Spirit, or one or combination of the three for arguments' sake.
Even just one's enough.
You are a smart man.
I will cut to the chase.
If your God has decided the decisive factor is -goodness- or -kindness- or -self-sacrifice-,
I assure you, Christianity will spread all over the globe in less than a month, and will replace all other religions in no time.
You seem to genuinely believe in your God.
Well, for some Christians, they have an underlying deep fear of ending up in hell for not believing in God and Christ. I have that too.
But I researched extensively, including the Bible, not to your extent, but definitely enough to see clearly, unless you refute my views rightfully.
Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, gave me alternatives for afterlife.
For one. Buddha's requirement is not faith in him, but goodness.
Hinduism requirement is: devotion to virtues.
Taoism factor: devotion to good character.
I strike to your center b/c you are smart. So let's not waste your precious time coming here with good intentions to save souls among your busy time.
I want to bet that you do not know of other alternatives mentioned above, nor do you know about them in depth, nor do you know of the persecution of non-Christians by your fellow "brothers" as such as in the GOP and Tea Party initiatives.
In your religious context, they are justified, violence, justified, slavery, justified, killings, justified, rape, justified. But you missed out some key points.
The Bible premise could be wrong.
Could be, Sir.
The Buddha, Krishna, Taoist Jade Emperor, all offer good eternal afterlives.
Tell me, why should I pick Christian God over them?
If you do not response, for your gentlemen manner, I assumer you got busy with your lives and will blame God for my destiny, not you.
Meanwhile, please, in your justification, in your context which I understand, contrarily to your belief, please tone down on your persecution of non-Christians.
Our forefathers had separation of church and state, in fear of our country becoming a Christian nation, by people like GOP and Tea Party.
Hope the new year bring you to a higher self and see... more clearly.
Tue Dec 31, 11:02:00 PM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Again, I beg you sir, for mercy, that persecuting, discrimination, bullying, isolation, of non-Christians, which is apparent in America, as you must be able to see, for you are a sharp man, is prevalent.
I beg you to tell them your fellows, in that, to tone down, however, in your belief to save our souls, justified, for it goes against Jesus's teachings of love thy neighbor and fellow men.
Tue Dec 31, 11:07:00 PM 2013 
 Cloud Hermit said...
Repost (I think you deserve to read this, even though some content is repeated, to neutralize... and I'm lazy to edit out):
Theme: "Why should I pick a Jew over an Indian, or a Chinese? when the Indian and Chinese clicks with my forefathers' hidden ambitions for our country!?"


We know of IQ, EQ (emotion quotient), AQ (adversity quotient), and now I am coining SQ and RQ (spiritual and religion quotient).
With the amount of talents and minds in our country, I am shocked of our collective SQ and RQ. We are low in SQ and RQ.
After all, our forefathers told us to have separation of church and state, so our country don't turn into like a Christian nation, jeopardizing basic human rights and personal choices, technological advances, jeopardizing *free will*. Why the heck did we, our forefathers, fight for independence?
Let's cut to the point.
God decided the single most important decisive factor is -faith-.
We are talking about faith to God, to Christ, to Holy Spirit - one or a combination of the three. And for arguments' sake,
even faith to just one is enough.
We are smart Americans.
I will cut to the chase to talk about this Jew - Jesus.
If God has decided the decisive factor to heaven over hell is *goodness* or *kindness* or *self-sacrifice* - something like that...
I assure you, Christianity will spread all over the globe in less than a month, and will replace all other religions in no time to Asia and Middle East.
Well, for most Christians, we have an underlying deep fear of ending up in hell for not believing in God and Christ. I have that too, for my afterlife.
But I researched extensively of all religions and all philosophies of East and West and Middle.
Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc., gave me alternatives for afterlife.
For one. Buddha's requirement is not faith in him, but goodness.
Hinduism requirement is: devotion to virtues.
Taoism decisive factor: devotion to good character.
They have their fallacies, but extremely minuscule compared to Christianity.
In our Christian religious context, we are justified in a lot of things, in the name of saving souls, to preserve our religion, to preserve Christianity: violence, justified, slavery, justified, killings, justified, rape, justified, incest, justified, war, justified, screwing around in politics, justified.
But we missed out some key points.
The Bible written by men - the premise could be wrong.
The Jew was wrong.
The Buddha, Krishna, Taoist Jade Emperor, all offer good eternal afterlives, comparable if not better than heaven.
Why should I pick a Jew over an Indian, or a Chinese? when the Indian and Chinese clicks with my forefathers' hidden ambitions for our country!?




Tue Dec 31, 11:39:00 PM 2013 
 Cormack said...
I'm sorry, Cloud, you misunderstand me. I am not trying to "save" you from anything, and I don't even believe in the "hell" you keep bringing up. This idea of hell is not even biblical. This is an idea that has pervaded the religion of Christianity from influences such as Dante, Des Cartes, and various Greek thought and extrabiblical cultural influences. Unfortunately most of those who identify with the Christian religion buy into this idea and interpret the Bible through this lens (eisegesis), rather than actually reading and studying Biblical texts for what they were actually meant to communicate (exegesis). Remember, I am not religious and am not trying to defend Christianity as a religion. I have simply been trying to communicate to you that you have little basis for criticizing biblical texts, because you do not understand them. (And much of the fault for that is Christians'.)
"Because of your heavy indoctrination from early, let me try to clear up better in the next post, if you really want to see the truth better, unlike most Christian scholars who somehow missing the -huge- point:"
Clearly, by the picture you have painted of me, you do not understand me (and it is clear you have read very little work from biblical scholars - certainly not enough to claim that "most" scholars are apparently missing the point). I am getting ready to refrain from further discussion with you because clearly, this is less a discussion than an argument based upon prejudice and a need for you to air your own opinion. It seems clear what this is all about: You have been hurt by Christianity or are upset about doctrine you have learned from Christians (not scholars). And that is a sentiment we both share. But you do not even understand what it is you are criticizing, so what you think you are attacking is very far removed from my actual beliefs and those of many biblical scholars. And your language tells me you don't really care to try to understand what the message of the Bible ACTUALLY is, either. So I think it would be meaningless for me to continue discussing this with you.
But I will say that what "faith" saves us from is not a fiery hell, but from being disconnected or out of touch with God. Those who do not believe in God and want nothing to do with the idea of God have nothing to be saved from, do they?
God wants us to be good. This is very clear from all of history, and from spirituality all around the world in all sorts of cultures who have had some revelation from the divine. And this is clear from the life and message of Christ. But that is a given. That is not the point of salvation because God expects all of us to do that, simply because we are HUMAN. That is a HUMAN need. We are failing in our humanity when we are not practicing love for one another. The message of salvation includes this, but goes beyond; it is about our connection with the divine. We are "saved" from ourselves and are restored unto God through the life and death of Jesus for all of mankind. The reason this is not based on "doing good", as you suggest it should, is because God already expects this of us and has since the beginning, and God knows that if we are doing good simply out of fear for our eternal lives or simply because we want something out of it, WE have missed the point. Do good, not because we must to be saved, but because that is our basic human duty. But salvation is about our connection with the eternal God, and that depends less on what we do and more about how we respond to God. Because in how we respond to God, how we seek and search for God, and how we live a life of love motivated by genuine love for one another, with faith that this Love is good and will cause all to be right, it is in this that we find answers and connection with God. And Jesus is this Love. That is the message of the gospels in a (unrefined, rough, overly simplistic) nutshell.
Tue Jan 07, 02:28:00 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 September 2011Absurdities in the Bible: An analysis by book
Now that I've completed another revision of the SAB, I thought I'd get back to everyone's favorite subject: Bible statistics.
One of the categories in the SAB is absurdities, and the current list has a total of 2165, which is more than any other biblical category. The list changes all the time, though, as I find more fun stuff in the Bible. But if I wait until it's finished to do an analysis, an analysis will never get done.
Now I'm sure you often ask yourself the question, "Which book in the Bible is the most absurd?" We all do. It can make you crazier than a Tea Party presidential candidate if you're not careful.
So let's try to answer it. We can begin by plotting the total number of absurdities in each book of the Bible versus the number of verses in the book. Here's the resulting graph.

The graph tells us a few things right away.
Leviticus has the most absurdities (158).
There are three books that have an unusual number of absurdities for their sizes. Two high (Revelation and Leviticus) and one low (Psalms).
The number of absurdities increases with the number of verses in a more or less linear fashion. (The line on the graph is the zero intercept least squares regression model for the data after removing the three outliers.
y = 0.0651 x, R2 = 0.9049.)
Since I knew some of you would ask for it, I repeated the analysis for each testament separately. Here's the graph for the Old.
(Model, outliers excluded: y = 0.0617 x, R2 = 0.8934)

And here's the New.
(Model, outlier excluded: y = 0.0770 x, R2 = 0.9622)

The separate models are similar to each other and to the combined model. The same outliers are present and the coefficients are of nearly equal magnitude. So that leaves us with this:
Leviticus is the most absurd book in the Old Testament and Revelation is in the New. And the book of Psalms seems abnormally normal for such a large biblical book.
Generally we can expect to find about 6.5 absurdities in each 100 verses of the Bible.
OK. But which book is the weirdest? Leviticus or Revelation?
Well, here are their numbers.  Absurdities  Verses  Absurdities per 100 verses 
Leviticus  158  859  18.4 
Revelation  94  404  23.3 

So I guess I'd go with Revelation.
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/18/2011 11:56:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
5 comments:
 Andy said...
I love the numerical breakdown you did. Nice job.
Mon Sep 19, 07:17:00 AM 2011 
 JustJoeP said...
Amanita muscaria are not uncommon on Patmos, so it is easy to see how and why the effects of the mushrooms found their way into 'scripture'.
Mon Sep 19, 02:09:00 PM 2011 
 nazani said...
For those interested in contradictions, I suggest getting a book called a "concordance." I'm sure there's one online. You'll find all the most basic disagreements, such as where Jesus was born, plus some you may not be aware of.
Mon Sep 19, 07:05:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
"Everyone's favourite subject - bible statistics!"
My poor sides, lol - MORE STATISTICS PLEASE :)u
Mon Sep 19, 08:14:00 PM 2011 
 Adam said...
Can we please see the same data on a log-log plot? There's lots of clustering in the lower values of both axes...
Tue Sep 20, 05:00:00 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
    
 13 September 20112 Nephi 7-9: Tomorrow is a Latter Day
Jacob takes a break from his preaching (again) by throwing in a few more chapters from Isaiah so that 2400 years later the true (LDS) church will know the covenants that God has covenanted with the Jews.
And now, my beloved brethren, I have read these things that ye might know concerning the covenants of the Lord that he has covenanted with all the house of Israel. That he has spoken unto the Jews ... until the time comes that they shall be restored to the true church. 2 Nephi 9:1-2
But I'm going to skip all that. Isaiah sucks (the breasts of kings).
After the Isaiah break, Jacob returned to his 19th century, frontier American, Protestant sermon, which he delivered to the Nephites circa 550 BCE, warning them that they'll all burn in hell unless they repent, believe, and be baptized in the name of someone (Jesus H. Christ) who will not exist for another six centuries or so.
If they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name ... they must be damned [to] hell ... the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment. 2 Nephi 9:24-26
Then he takes off all his clothes and shakes them in front of his brethren, exposing himself in all of his glorious blood-free brightness to God's all-searching eye.
Behold, I take off my garments, and I shake them before you; I pray ... God ... view me with his all-searching eye ... that I stand with brightness before him, and am rid of your blood. 2 Nephi 9:44
After that Jacob is not only naked, he's also a bit tired, so he'll finish his sermon tomorrow.
And now, my brethren, I would speak unto you more; but on the morrow I will declare unto you the remainder of my words. Amen. 2 Nephi 9:54
Tomorrow is a Latter Day.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogging the Book of Mormon
Next Episode: 2 Nephi 10: Wicked Jews, Blessed Gentiles, and a Completely Mormon America (with a Mormon president)
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/13/2011 10:17:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
1 comment:
 JustJoeP said...
LOL! Mr. Wells, you cannot make this stuff up! Your excerpts bring superb mirth and amusement to my Friday afternoon. Having spent all of last week driving back and forth across Utah, I thoroughly appreciate your BofM quotes. Keep up the good work!
Fri Sep 16, 04:29:00 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
    
 12 September 2011Ron Paul's health care plan: Let uninsured sick people die and unlicensed "doctors" practice medicine


Posted by Steve Wells at 9/12/2011 09:46:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
4 comments:
 PG said...
I found this quite interesting. I am for freedom, and I don't fully disagree with him that some of the basic tenants of freedom is letting people make their own bad choices.
It is however unfortunate to think that a nation should not defend it's weak and needy. And at times it is a brutally cold fact that some choices are best that we not have to make ourselves. For humans waver in their understanding as a whole.
The part about alternative medicine is more silly though, even if it promotes freedom to choose. Alternative medicine is not medicine.
The ideals he promotes would be awesome in a utopian society, where everyone has perfect knowledge and perfect continuous judgement. But this is not how the world works.
Wed Sep 14, 01:31:00 PM 2011 
 Neil D. said...
The question was a "healthy guy with a good job who decides not to pay for insurance". It is a completely different question than supporting the needy. There are many things on which I disagree with Ron Paul, some I agree with.
Fri Sep 16, 02:09:00 PM 2011 
 JustJoeP said...
Unlicensed doctoring is par for the course for the Paul family. Senator son and hair club for men member Rand could not get certified by a legitimate national board as an ophthalmologist(the ABO) so he created his own board, the NBO, and certified himself. Read more here:
ABC News reports, made up certificate
Fri Sep 16, 04:33:00 PM 2011 
 Marcus Friedrich said...
I don't like his idea that the "churches took care of them". The last thing the US needs right now is a bunch of parochial religious medical institutions proselytizing patients and families. However, Paul is on to something when he emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility and freedom to decide for ourselves. Paul's main point is that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says nothing about Govt providing healthcare for the poor and needy. It says to provide for "general welfare of the nation" but in the 18th century "welfare" did not mean perpetual payments for chronic unemployment, food stamps and free health care. It meant "health, happiness, prosperity, well-being."
I don't think Americans would be damaged by a call to greater self-reliance...like not signing mortgage refinance agreements or eating shit food without understanding the terms and potential consequences.
Thu Jan 19, 09:16:00 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
    
 11 September 2011Reparative Therapy: It's time to open the door
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/11/2011 09:27:00 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
    
 28 October 2011Saving the Seed of Cain from the Flood of Noah
In my last post I described how Mormon Scripture explains the origin of black people. (They are the seed of Cain.)
Which is all very interesting. But if you are foolish enough to accept that racist explanation, you still have a problem. How did the seed of Cain survive Noah's flood?
Well, lucky for you, my racist friend, Mormon Scripture has the answer!
You've probably seen the pictures of Noah's family. They look a lot like this.

A nice, happy, white family. But if they were all white, where'd all the black people come from?
And that's where the Book of Abraham comes in.
Unless you're a Mormon, you've probably never heard of the Book of Abraham. It's not in that little blue book that the Mormon missionaries gave you (and that you've never looked at since). And Mormons don't like to talk about it much because it's horribly embarrassing to them. But it's in the Pearl of Great Price and is, therefore, a part of Mormon Scripture.
In it we learn that Pharaoh was descended from the testicles of Ham.

Pharaoh ... was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was ... of the blood of the Canaanites by birth ... thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. Abraham 1:20-22
(Ham was the guy who saw his father, Noah, drunk and naked in Genesis 9:20-25. For this crime, God cursed the descendants of Canaan, Ham's son, with slavery.)
Abe also tells us that Egypt was discovered (while it was still under water from the flood) by one of Ham's daughters, Egyptus. (She was named after her mother, Ham's wife, who was also named Egyptus, and who was, apparently, a black woman.)

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land. Abraham 1:23-24
So Pharaoh was the son of Egyptus, who was the daughter of Ham and his wife Egyptyus, from "that race which preserved the curse in the land."
According to Mormon Scripture, then, black people are doubly cursed: they are the seed of Cain and the seed of Ham. Cursed by God for Cain's murder of Abel and cursed again because Ham saw his father (Noah) drunk and naked.
God darkened their skin and made them slaves, but that wasn't the worst of it. He also excluded them from the Mormon priesthood.

Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham ... Noah ... cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood ... Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood. Abraham 1:26-27
Until he changed his mind in 1978.
Posted by Steve Wells at 10/28/2011 11:18:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
3 comments:
 The Wise Fool said...
You know, what is so sad is that there was a time when the majority of the white Americans who heard this thought that it made sense, even if Mormon teaching overall was a bit heretical.
Thank God we've gone far beyond that time. ;-)
Fri Oct 28, 04:08:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
First-person accounts! Must be true!
According to first-person accounts, after much discussion among the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on this matter, they engaged the Lord in prayer. According to the writing of one of those present, Bruce R. McConkie of the Twelve: "It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord."
Mormonism- exploring the limits of human gullibility since 1830.
Steve Weeks
Fri Oct 28, 07:41:00 PM 2011 
 Leonardo de la Paor said...
IF YOU WANT LOTS OF SEX BECOME A ROCK STAR OR START YOUR OWN RELIGION.
Joseph Smith's 33 Secret Wives
By Joel B. Groat
Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, (Signature Books, 1997) 788 pages, cloth, ISBN 1-56085-085-X.

Brigham Young was perhaps the most famous polygamist of the early Latter Day Saint movement, marrying a total of 55 wives, 54 of them after becoming a Latter Day Saint. He stated that upon being taught about plural marriage, "It was the first time in my life that I desired the grave." By the time of his death, Young had 57 children by 16 of his wives; 46 of his children reached adulthood.
Fri Nov 11, 11:54:00 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
    
 26 October 2011The mark of (Herman) Cain: What Mitt Romney believes about black people
It starts with the book of Genesis.
Remember the story about Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel? (Genesis 4:1-17)
Adam and Eve have sex, Eve gets pregnant, and Cain ("a man from the Lord") is born.
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Genesis 4:1
In the next verse, another son (Abel) is born.

And she again bare his brother Abel. Genesis 4:2a
Cain becomes a farmer, Abel tends sheep, and each offers a sacrifice to God. Cain gave God the fruit of his crops; Abel killed some firstborn sheep and gave God all the fat. God liked the fat more than the fruit. (How could they tell? Did God eat the fat while they watched?)

Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD ... Abel ... the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. Genesis 4:2b-5a
That made Cain mad and sad. So he talked things over with his little brother, Abel.
Then he killed him.

And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
...
Cain talked with Abel his brother ... and slew him. Genesis 4:4b-8
God dropped by and asked Cain where his brother was. Cain said, "I don't know. Am I my brother's keeper?"

And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? Genesis 4:9
God cursed Cain for killing Abel, making him a fugitive and vagabond.

Now art thou cursed ... a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. Genesis 4:11-12
Cain told God that he was worried about people killing him, so God put a mark on Cain warning people not to kill him or vengeance would be taken on them seven times. (What were God and Cain worried about? There were only two other people alive at the time -- Cain's parents.)

Cain said unto the LORD ... every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. Genesis 4:13-15
Then Cain went off east of Eden in the land of Nod, got married, raised a family, built a city, and did all the things you'd expect a fugitive and vagabond to do on a planet with a total population of 3.

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Genesis 4:16-17
But what was the mark that God put on Cain? Was it a sign on his forehead saying, "I killed my brother, but don't kill me or God will kill you seven times"? The Bible doesn't say.
Lucky for us and Mitt Romney, Mormon Scripture does! (More or less, anyway.)
There are four books in Mormon Scripture: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. And one of the books in the Pearl of Great Price is the Book of Moses.
Here's what Moses had to say about the seed of Cain.
And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. Moses 7:22
So Mormon scripture says that the seed of Cain are black and God put a mark on Cain. Someone should ask Mitt Romney if the two things are one and the same.
Maybe it should be (Herman) Cain.
Posted by Steve Wells at 10/26/2011 07:08:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
5 comments:
 Abbie said...
Just discovered this blog and I gotta to say embarrassingly - the passage below is EXACTLY how I came to start thinking, really thinking about the bible. When I actually read it. The other red flags were those little notes at the bottom of each page. When there was something questionable and I needed further explanations, those verses were conveniently not mentioned or simply explained and not to my satisfaction or in anyway that made sense. That part was the most frustrating! For example, the one verse that comes to mind was when god supposedly gave Saul an evil spirit which made him turn on David- the explanation said "god doesn't send evil spirits". I remember screaming, WTF? I just read verbatim where it said the evil spirit came from the lord! That was the most patronizing experience ever. I cannot believe the gall of some of those bible authors. Anyway, all that to say great work. I will admit, it sometimes is still hard to accept that after death there's nothing. I had so much hope in going to heaven and living forever....it is depressing that the world is the way it is and we don't in fact have a savior. What are we living for then? What is the purpose to us, the world, everything? More questions. Much more.
‎"When I was a Christian, I never read the Bible. Not all the way through, anyway. The problem was that I believed the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God, yet the more I read it, the less credible that belief became. I finally decided that to protect my faith in the Bible, I'd better quit trying to read it....I think most Bible-believers find themselves in that position -- although few will admit it. Not even to themselves"
Thu Oct 27, 07:20:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
@ Abbie...
You raise some good issues in your last paragraph before the quote. I will agree that it *is* somewhat depressing that there is so much suffering in the world, but this is pretty good evidence that there is not a benevolent "loving" god. You might also think it's sad that you won't live in heaven forever, but really would you want to spend the rest of eternity in perpetual worship of He Whose Toes You Are Not Fit to Lick? Christopher Hitchens has an interesting comparison between heaven and North Korea. We make our own meaning in our lives. Do you really think your close friends and family wouldn't care if you died? There is meaning there. I believe our purpose is to live, and if we can be kind to others and protective of the Earth, so much the better. Also, I find it enormously satisfying to think that I am made of materials (elements) that were made in the hearts of stars over literally billions of years; so are you and everything around us (even the bible!). The very fact that my individual existence is so so so improbable, yet here I am, makes me feel very special. And so it should you.
If you haven't read any Bart Ehrman, I recommend "Jesus, Interrupted" and "God's Problem", among anything else he has written.
Best Regards,
Steve Weeks
Thu Oct 27, 06:04:00 PM 2011 
 twillight said...
Actually I've found not needing a saviour totally liberating.
It means I can do things, even fight the whole universe, and no need waiting for someone else in hope that maybe one day he'll fix my chair, because I'm just some crippled retard, who can't use a toilet even.
Also when you think through the whole eternal life thingy, it would be the most terrible fate because of boredom.
Fri Oct 28, 09:02:00 AM 2011 
 bobinbpt said...
Abbie, just because most scriptures were written with the sole purpose of gaining power over others, doesn't mean that they are totally wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, LOL. So don't despair. The Biblical descriptions of heaven sound pretty boring anyway and pretty illogical, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing beyond this physical life. Maybe reincarnation is true; maybe we are immortal inherantly and it isn't dependent upon rituals, blood sacrifices or slavish service to any particular deity. Maybe we just change form like water, which can be solid, liquid or gas depending on the surrounding circumstances.
Fri Jan 20, 10:08:00 AM 2012 
 Jon said...
I've actually come back and forth from believing and not believing the Bible, and now once again believing the Bible, again. For quite a while I began to intellectualize and argue with Christians and scriptures and had amassed a great many pages of arguments against the reliability of the Bible. I still find a lot of questionable things to be sorted out, but I don't worry about them so much anymore, or take offense to them the way I used to. Many of us do have a need to understand some things, undoubtedly, but the Bible has turned our ability to [intellectually]understand it all on its head, and it is an elusive pursuit to understand the Bible strictly from an intellectual point of view. Faith and intellectual understanding are often at odds by design, I believe, so that the wisdom of this world is confounded and that faith is exalted above intellectualism alone. What seems evasive to you is evasive by design, because the natural mind cannot understand spiritual concepts. And yes, there are many things that even Christians will not understand either, and there will forever be disagreement between sects, and even within sects. I can't explain it, but faith is something tangible and very real that transcends and supersedes the understanding and ability of mere intellectual deduction. Faith is more than a simple placebo or some blindfolded leap into the realm of wishful thinking, because it dramatically changes lives, heals the sick, and empowers the believer in very real ways that cannot be ignored or denied. And, in the interest of your good sensibilities to be fair, I know that you'll post my comments, seeing that I was once in agreement with you, and that I understand where you're coming from, and sympathize with your desire to intellectualize and reconcile the Bible in some rational way.
Fri Feb 17, 10:51:00 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
    
 14 October 2011Mitt Romney believes that all non-Mormon sects are an abomination in the sight of God
OK, he didn't actually say that, but that's what he believes -- if he is, as he claims to be, a member of the LDS church.
There can be no doubt about this one. Here's why.
A Mormon believes that all scripture is inspired by God and is, therefore, true. One of the writings in LDS scripture is The Pearl of Great Price, which includes Joseph Smith -- History.
In his "History", Joseph Smith describes a meeting he had when he was 14 years old with God and Jesus. Joseph was confused about the various Christian sects, so he asked God to help him sort it all out. Here's what happened according to Mormon scripture.
Exerting all my powers to call upon God ... I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. 16
A light, brighter than the sun, fell on Joseph, and two brightly shining men appeared above him in the air. One of them said to him, while pointing at the other shiny guy, "Joseph, this is my beloved son. Hear him!" (Jesus's dad is on the right.)

When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! 17
Which was really fortunate, since Joseph wanted to find out which of the Christian sects was right. Now that God and his son (Jesus, I'm thinking) had showed up, Joseph could just ask them directly. If anyone would know, they would.
My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. ... Therefore ... I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. 18
The more talkative one (Jesus' dad?) told Joseph that he should "join none of them, for they were all wrong" and that "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight."
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight. 19
So if Mitt Romney is a Mormon, he believes that all non-Mormon Christian beliefs are wrong and an abomination in God's sight.
Either that or he believes that Joseph Smith was just making stuff up when he wrote Mormon scripture.
Someone should ask him which it is.

Posted by Steve Wells at 10/14/2011 02:59:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
8 comments:
 krissthesexyatheist said...
I believe the second one...it's all made up. It even sounds totally made up, not even partially. OMFSM, peeps believe this stuffs (obviously. So not awesome (for the GOP-n-stuffs).
Kriss
Fri Oct 14, 04:36:00 PM 2011 
 skanksta said...
someone should.
Sun Oct 16, 01:59:00 PM 2011 
 Richard T said...
An insolent question from a Brit. Are you guys happy that someone who actually believes the twaddle that is mormonism is a serious candidate to run your country? I suppose it would be more comforting to work on the basis that he doesn't and is only pretending mormonism to be elected so instead of being a fool, he is a canting humbug.
Incidentally it's very difficult not to miss out the odd consonant from mormonism isn't it?
Wed Oct 19, 07:33:00 AM 2011 
 nazani said...
@Richard T- I'm confident I speak for many when I say I am not happy. Imagine running the US without using any caffeine, or attending any diplomatic function without alcohol. I would rather vote for a Druid candidate. Just as silly, but pro-tree and loose, comfortable garments.
Thu Oct 20, 09:34:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
@ Richard T:
It's twaddle, right enough, but is it any more so because it's of recent origin? The old stuff (virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc.) is just as bat-guano-crazy.
Steve weeks
Thu Oct 20, 07:27:00 PM 2011 
 Joe said...
A wise man once said, "sitting in a garage doesn't make you a car, sitting in church doesn't make you a christian. Think about that.
Wed Oct 26, 09:38:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
Blogger Joe said...
A wise man once said, "sitting in a garage doesn't make you a car, sitting in church doesn't make you a christian. Think about that.
I wonder what *does* make you a christian, and whether that is the same as what makes you *think* you're a christian.
Steve Weeks
Sat Oct 29, 07:52:00 PM 2011 
 Unknown said...
I know that Mitt will make a great President. He is a committed family man with great value. He does not Drink, smoke, use profanity, cheat, lie, commit adultery, etc. Would you rather have JFK (Adulterer, Nixon (cheater, lier), Clinton (Adulturer, lier), Bush jr. (Lier, Cheater, Adulterer, Drunk, Drug user, Sellout to his campaign contributors) Obama (Lier). No wonder Americans do not trust their leaders!!!! Give me this Mormon guy, at least he will do what is right!!!!
Mon Feb 20, 01:30:00 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
    
 19 November 2011Christ on a Dog's Ass

Or it might be Muhammad (pb&jbuh). It's hard to tell those two apart.
Via Why Evolution is True
Posted by Steve Wells at 11/19/2011 05:45:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
8 comments:
 Stephen said...
On the Hispanic web site where Jerry Coyne saw this, the caption says Jesus appears in the "let the little children come to me" pose. ^_^
Steve Weeks
Sun Nov 20, 07:21:00 AM 2011 
 Bukko Canukko said...
Or it could be some new scary move super-villain with vortexes on his hands to suck your guts right out your mouth, and then steal your soul!
Or maybe it's just a dog's ass. I got yer Jeebus right here, buddy...
Sun Nov 20, 12:12:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
I was reminded of this parody, sung to the tune of "The Church's One Foundation:
THE DOGS' PARTY
The dogs held a convention, they came from near and far.
And some dogs came by taxi, and some by motorcar.
And at the registration, they all signed in the book.
And each dog hung his asshole upon a separate hook.
One dog was not invited, and this aroused his ire.
He ran into the meeting, and there he shouted "fire!"
And in the mass confusion, the dogs forgot to look,
And each dog grabbed an asshole, from of the nearest hook.
The dogs ran from the meeting, they scattered far and wide,
And which dog had which asshole, they never could decide.
And now whenever dogs meet, on land or sea or foam,
Each sniffs the other's asshole, in hopes that it's his own.
Melody here if you need it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=molBcp8S_Ng
Steve Weeks
Mon Nov 21, 04:15:00 AM 2011 
 Sabio Lantz said...
Being the sick bastards that we are, my son and I blew up this photo only to reveal that it was clearly photoshopped. We we disappointed we hadn't thought of doing the same.
We also checked our dog's anus but no divine personages making a visit -- we had hoped to see Buddha or Shiva to whom we are more partial. Alas!
Wed Nov 23, 06:53:00 AM 2011 
 Sabio Lantz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wed Nov 23, 06:54:00 AM 2011 
 Sabio Lantz said...
Being sick people, my son and I blew this picture up to show that it had been photoshopped. We were disappointed, hoping it was again a divine appearance -- and that we had not thought of doing this photoshopping ourselves.
We even checked our dog's anus but found nothing. We had hoped to find the Buddha or Shiva to which our house is more friendly.
Wed Nov 23, 09:34:00 AM 2011 
 Paul Sunstone said...
Which president is that?
Thu Dec 08, 11:50:00 PM 2011 
 BTRANSREAL said...
Can you please post a video of your doggie taking a crap?
Preferably low angle :D
Sat Mar 08, 11:30:00 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
    
 11 November 2011The Esther Killings: Do they belong on God's list?
Esther is one of the two books in the Bible in which God is not even mentioned (the other is the Song of Solomon).
Maybe that's why some Bible believers, such as Martin Luther, believed that it should be excluded from the Bible. In Luther's case, however, it probably had more to do with his extreme antisemitism. Because the point of the Book of Esther, if it has a point, is this: God loves Jews more than everyone else and anyone who has ever had a bad thought about them should be killed. (And Luther had lots of bad thoughts about Jews.)
There is a whole series of killings in Esther, mostly to avenge antisemitism. But since the Book of Esther does not mention God's name, it's difficult to blame him directly for these killings. Still, since Esther is included in the Bible, the God of the Bible must approve of the killings, insofar as a nonexistent being can approve of anything.
The Book of Esther also has an important message for women: your job in life is to look pretty and to please, honor, and obey men. If that means dancing naked in front of your husband's drunken guests, dance naked. Be an Esther, not a Vashti. (Which is, of course, bad advice. Vashti is the hero of the Book of Esther and she gets my vote for the best person in the Bible.)
So what about the Esther killings? Do they belong on God's list? Let me know what you think in the comments.
Here's the story.
After the Esther wins the dancing-naked-before-the-king contest, she goes on a killing spree.
She begins by telling the king to hang two men that her friend (Mordecai) said wanted to kill the king.
Two of the king's chamberlains ... sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus. And the thing was known to Mordecai, who told it unto Esther the queen; and Esther certified the king ... And when inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out; therefore they were both hanged on a tree. Esther 2:21-23
Then, for some strange reason, the king told everyone in the kingdom to bow and show reverence to a guy named Haman.
All the king's servants ... bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded. Esther 3:2a
But Esther's Jewish friend Mordecai refused.
But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence. Esther 3:2b
So Haman, did what any proper Bible villain would do: he tried to kill every Jew in the kingdom.
When Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath ... Wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom. Esther 3:5-6
Haman offered to give the king 10,000 talents (~300,000 kg) of silver if he would kill all the Jews. And the king said, "OK, that sounds like a good idea. Let's kill all the Jews."
Haman said unto king Ahasuerus ... let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver.
And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman ... the Jews' enemy.
And the king said unto Haman, The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee. Esther 3:8-10
The king sent out a decree to all the provinces declaring a kingdom-wide Kill-the-Jews Day. It was to take place on the 13th day of the 12th month. "All Jews, both young and old, little children and women" were to be killed on that day.
Letters were sent by posts into all the king's provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month. Esther 3:13
Haman, at his wife and friends' suggestion, decides to begin by building a 25 meter tall gallows to hang Mordecai on.
Then said Zeresh his wife and all his friends unto him, Let a gallows be made of fifty cubits high, and to morrow speak thou unto the king that Mordecai may be hanged thereon ... And the thing pleased Haman; and he caused the gallows to be made. Esther 5:14
Meanwhile, at one of the king's drunken parties, the king told Esther that he'd give her whatever she wanted, up to half the kingdom.
So the king and Haman came to banquet with Esther the queen. And the king said again unto Esther on the second day at the banquet of wine ... what is thy request? and it shall be performed, even to the half of the kingdom. Esther 7:1-3
Esther asks the king not to murder all the Jews. And the king says, "Huh? Who is trying to kill the Jews?" (The king had completely forgotten that he had ordered the genocide of the Jews back in chapter 3.)
The king ... said unto Esther ... Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so? And Esther said, The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman. Esther 7:5-6
So the king hangs Haman high.
So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified. Esther 7:10
After hanging Haman at Esther's request, the king gave Esther (and her buddy Mordecai) Haman's ring and house.
The king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it unto Mordecai. And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman.
I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews. Esther 8:1-7
Then, at Esther's request, the king ordered a preemptive strike on all 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia. Everyone who planned to kill Jews will be killed by Jews, along with their wives and children. And all this killing is to take place on a single day -- the day after the first decree ordered all the Jews to be killed. (How are the Jews to figure out who planned to kill them and who didn't? Were they supposed to just kill everyone and let God sort it out? And why did they need to kill the women and children?)
"Mordecai commanded ... the deputies and rulers of the provinces which are from India unto Ethiopia, an hundred twenty and seven provinces ... to destroy, to slay and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women.
Upon one day in all the provinces ... the Jews should be ready against that day to avenge themselves on their enemies. Esther 8:9-13
On the day when all Jew-haters (and their families) were killed by Jews, "the Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour ... a feast and a good day." (Esther 8:16-17a)
But many of the Jew-haters became Jews rather than be killed for wanting to kill Jews.
Many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them. Esther 8:17b
So the Jews kill everyone who ever had a bad thought toward them, along with their Jew-hating families.
The Jews had rule over them that hated them. The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces ... to lay hand on such as sought their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell upon all people.
...
The Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them. Esther 9:1-5
They killed 500 men in Shushan.
In Shushan the palace the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men. Esther 9:6
They killed the ten sons of Haman.
The ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews, slew they. Esther 9:10
Esther asks the king to kill all those who planned to kill the Jews and hang the already dead bodies of Haman's ten sons on trees.
The king said unto Esther the queen, The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the palace, and the ten sons of Haman ... what is thy request further? ... Then said Esther ... let it be granted to the Jews which are in Shushan to do to morrow also according unto this day's decree, and let Haman's ten sons be hanged.
...
And they hanged Haman's ten sons. Esther 9:12-13
Then the Jews killed another 300 men at Shushan,
The Jews ... slew three hundred men at Shushan. Esther 9:15
And 75,000 other Jew-haters.
The other Jews ... slew of their foes seventy and five thousand. Esther 9:16
The day after killing all the Jew-haters and their families, the Jews took a day off to party. (This is the origin of the Jewish holiday of Purim.)
On the fourteenth day of the same rested they, and made it a day of feasting and gladness. Esther 9:17
And then, at Esther's request, the king hung Haman and his ten sons (again).
When Esther came before the king, he commanded ... that he [Haman] and his sons should be hanged on the gallows. Esther 9:25
After the killings, "Modecai the Jew was ... great among the Jews ... seeking the wealth of" the Jews. And so ends the Book of Esther.
Here is a list of the Esther killings:
People killed  Number  Esther verse 
The two treasonous chamberlains  2  2:21-23 
Haman  1  7:10 
Men in Sushan  500  9:6 
Haman's sons  10  9:12-13 
More men in Sushan  300  9:15 
People who planned to kill Jews on Kill-the-Jews Day  75,000  9:16 
Total  75,813  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 14 note: See God hath done these things: The Apocrypha to the Rescue! for the happy resolution to this problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: Job’s children and slaves

Posted by Steve Wells at 11/11/2011 07:43:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
4 comments:
 nazani said...
Yes, they belong. You've included other killings of people that were mean to Jews or simply had something that the Hebrews wanted; I see no fundamental difference here.
I'd always thought that the independent behavior of Judith and Esther was the main reason their books were kicked out. Actually, i still think that.
Sun Nov 13, 08:12:00 AM 2011 
 skanksta said...
Sorry, but can't see yahweh's fingerprints on this crime scene AT ALL.
Mon Nov 14, 03:11:00 PM 2011 
 SamuEL said...
Picture the Nazi's, but place that character in people who lived 3000 years ago..savages. We still up to not long ago where hunting them for killing Jews (and hanging them). Esther was written of people who lived in Babylon after Israel was returned it's land by Darius. This book shows with out mention of God, (because he wasn't being worshiped by them), but he shows he still is with them as he promised to be. It is the literary genuis of the Holy Spirit to leave out mention of God and yet show his presence.
Sat Nov 26, 11:33:00 PM 2011 
 G. Schwartz said...
"But since the Book of Esther does not mention God's name, it's difficult to blame him directly for these killings. Still, since Esther is included in the Bible, the God of the Bible must approve of the killings, insofar as a nonexistent being can approve of anything."
You have missed an important point when discussing narrative in the biblical text. Just because something is in the Bible does not mean that God approved of what happened. On your logic, the death of Uriah due to the scheming of David would have been approved by God, merely because it is in the Bible. But clearly God did not approve of Uriah's death, because he sent Nathan to David to confront him with his sin.
The mere presence of an event in the biblical text is not God's rubber stamp on what happened. There are clearly times in the Bible when God did not approve of what happened. But these events are included in the biblical text for a reason, not haphazardly.
And furthermore, the narratives of the Bible are not always meant to be normative for Christian practice. Sometimes these narratives are merely descriptive passages which preserve for us the events that happened.
Tue Nov 29, 09:17:00 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
    
 03 November 2011Science & Religion: Are They Compatible?
The Jerry Coyne / John Haught Debate
You simply must watch this debate. No excuses.
Okay, Okay. I know it's kind of long, and you're a busy person. So go ahead and skip the first 28 and half minutes. You won't miss much.

2011 Bale Boone Symposium - Science & Religion: Are They Compatible? from UK Gaines Center on Vimeo.
For more on the debate controversy, see Jerry Coyne's blog.
Posted by Steve Wells at 11/03/2011 11:00:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
8 comments:
 Andy Breeden said...
I challenge anyone to watch the first 28 and a half minutes. I couldn't. Ugh.
Thu Nov 03, 11:45:00 AM 2011 
 capercaillie said...
I struggled my way through the first segment, and my notes:
He can't separate the "existance of a purpose" from the fact that purposes arise, emerge or are created by us as means for giving meaning to our lives and rationalizing what happens around the world, and how the world is. THERE IS NO MEANING, BUT MEANING CAN ARISE/BE CREATED GIVEN OUR HIGHER COGNITIVE ABILITIES. He has his model all backwards: higher cognitive skills can arise out of lower building blocks and elements. You can't have the abstract without the basic: without the basic building blocks, there is nothing to be able to construct and perceive the abstract anyhow. The "God is love" talk is ultimately bullshit, as "love" is something that can only exist given lower basic forms with cognitive skills. So, damnit! If "god is love" (kenosis), then god is man-made.
He then stops short when he's going through his "detecting information" show, as he carries on into waters where there actually ISN'T ANYTHING TO DETECT IN THE FIRST PLACE, but asserts that there is something there. Who hasn't seen a face in a cloud? Does this mean that there IS a face in the cloud? We have hyperactive agency detectors, and this can help us evolutionary as long as they're set to "medium": false positives for "tiger in the bushes" vs "wind causing leaves to rattle" is positive when it comes to survival.
He also then goes on to say that science is "plain reading"... as opposed to what? The FANTASY reading of the theologians?
Sheesh. Whenever I listen to these abstract near-atheist "theologians" I want to mentally stab my brain out just to make the idiocy stop.
They always end up in this quasi-philosophical fog lands where "deep" questions like "how can you know that your wife's love for you is TRUE?", and then go on with the "oh but God isn't the misunderstood god of the atheists, but it's an inherent property in us all! God is Love!" AAAAAAAAGH! :)
Fri Nov 04, 01:52:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
I first watched the last part, as recommended. Jerry Coyne was very clear and easy to understand. I would have liked to see his visual presentation, but the idea was planted in my mind that he must have kicked the other guy's ass, intellectually speaking. So I went back and watched the first part. It was a struggle. My drivel detector was pegged at 11. I heard the word "transcendent" a number of times, though it seemed as if I was not supposed to be able to contemplate levels higher than my own, whatever that means. It was not made clear at all how science is completely compatible with theology. Then Coyne came on and what *was* clear was that I had wasted 28 minutes.
Thanks for posting the video.
Steve
Fri Nov 04, 06:57:00 PM 2011 
 nazani said...
That...was the most preeminent scholar of the compatibility between religion and science? *facepalm*
Buddhism is largely compatible with religion, but Christianity certainly isn't. Math in the service of science has predicted things like nuclear fission and the existence of black holes. Religion has no predictive ability, and the religious are jealous as hell.
Sat Nov 05, 08:23:00 AM 2011 
 fuzz said...
Are there things that can't be proven by science?
This is an honest question of mine.
Fri Dec 02, 02:33:00 PM 2011 
 fuzz said...
Are there things that can't be proven by science?
This is an honest question of mine.
Fri Dec 02, 02:34:00 PM 2011 
 Dan said...
Fuzz Just finished a book "Extrordinary Knowing". It was a good start to answering that question. Give it a shot. Dan
Sat Jan 14, 09:14:00 PM 2012 
 Jason Norin said...
Science and religion should not take each other as threats. Instead, they can use their influences to spread knowledge to everyone. As a subscriber of a business broadband in Australia, I can assure that can be done.

Sun Sep 22, 06:53:00 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
    
 01 November 2011Mitt Romney: The luckiest motherfudger on earth

Posted by Steve Wells at 11/01/2011 10:43:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
3 comments:
 Suzanne Korb said...
Darn. I wanted to view this, but it's on Hulu and I'm outside the US and they are prejudice.
Tue Nov 01, 12:46:00 PM 2011 
 Brady J. Frey said...
Doesn't jive on my iPad either sadly- but you can get around that with a direct link to the Hulu page.
Tue Nov 01, 09:47:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
"The guy's out of control... he's trying to bang nuns on the party bus!"
[gasp] Can't breathe! :lol:
But the clips of Perry were even better; that he could be closer to the nomination than Bozo the Clown says some very sad things about our political system. Well, at least the republican party.
Steve Weeks
Fri Nov 04, 07:38:00 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
    
 14 December 2011God hath done these things: The Apocrypha to the Rescue!
I've struggled a bit lately with the Book of Esther.
It is filled with preemptive war and genocidal ethnic cleansing, that the author clearly supported and glorified. But since the book makes no mention of God, directly or indirectly, it's difficult to blame God for the killings -- or claim that he inspired them, or even approved of them, for that matter. (Except in the sense that since God inspired the author of the Book of Esther, he approved of whatever the author approved.)
Which is why the apocrypha comes in so handy.
Here are the first words of the additions to the Book of Esther, as taken from the Catholic Douay-Reims version.
Then Mardochai said: God hath done these things.
The folks at DRBO.org add this helpful note to Esther 10:4.
[4] Then Mardochai: Here St. Jerome advertiseth the reader, that what follows is not in the Hebrew, but is found in the septuagint Greek edition, which the seventy-two interpreters translated out of the Hebrew, or added by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
So we know that Esther 10:4 was added through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and that therefore, God was responsible for the killings in the Book of Esther.
(See also 10:10, 12; 11:12; 13:8, 18, 14:1-2, 15:3, 5; 16:10-18, and 21)
Thank God for the Apocrypha!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some time now, I have wanted to add the Apocrypha (or what Catholics call the Deutero-canonical books) to the SAB. I've finally started with the book of Esther.
As I go along, I'll add the apocryphal killings to the list of killings in the Catholic Bible. That way, I'll have two lists: one for the Protestants and one for the Catholics.
Posted by Steve Wells at 12/14/2011 12:01:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
7 comments:
 Stephen said...
Does this mean you'll have an expanded version of "Drunk with Blood"?
Steve Weeks
Thu Dec 15, 07:30:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Does this mean you'll have an expanded version of "Drunk with Blood"?
Yeah, I think so. There's quite a bit of killing that I haven't yet covered in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books. But I'll get to it eventually!
Thu Dec 15, 08:33:00 PM 2011 
 nazani said...
I've always liked the Book of Esther, in spite of the overkill. It has sassy ladies and leads to fantasies of barbarically gorgeous ancient jewelry. I suspect the uppity females bit is the real reason why it was taken out of the bible, ditto Judith.
Sun Dec 18, 07:07:00 AM 2011 
 Stephen said...
But I'll get to it eventually!
I'll look forward to that. Meanwhile, I haven't forgotten my informal proof-reading project... I'm just side-tracked re-reading another of my favorite Holy Books: "The Silmarillion".
Happy Christmas/Winter Solstice/Other to you and your family!
Steve Weeks
Sun Dec 18, 11:52:00 AM 2011 
 Steve S. said...
I am curious as to why you always quote the KJV?
Is there a reason for it?
It actually makes you seem a little behind the times... scholarly speaking, so I assume there is a reason for it?
Fri Dec 30, 03:09:00 PM 2011 
 Stephen said...
@ Steve S:
The KJV is probably the most-quoted version of the bible because, IIRC, it was one of the first versions published in English (I could be wrong about this). It has had a significant impact on English literature... even Richard Dawkins says this. However, according to Bart Ehrman the KJV is based on some poor translations, possibly even fraudulent translations (again, it's been a while since I read Ehrman, but I think I'm remembering correctly). Consequently, the KJV is a virtually endless source of nonsense. IMO, that justifies being a little behind the times. YMMV.
Steve Weeks
Mon Jan 09, 08:03:00 AM 2012 
 Monty Ehrich said...
Dwindling in Unbelief
Does that mean that unbelief is dwindling, or does it mean dwindling into unbelief?
Thu Nov 15, 07:22:00 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.