What Kind Of...Deity...?

From the Errancy Discussion list, 10-28-97:

TILL

...I have to wonder what difference it makes what the population of Bethlehem may have been. If the massacre actually happened [Mt 2:1-16], it would be bad enough if just one child was killed. Have you thought about posing these questions to biblicists: what kind of omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would cause his son to be born in a place and circumstances that would cause children to be massacred, and why would such a deity take special efforts to see that his son, who is omni-everything himself and therefore eternal, was saved from the massacre but leave the other male children to be killed? Didn't any of their parents merit dreams in which an angel warned them to take children and flee? Wouldn't raising issues like these be more likely to cause readers to question their beliefs on this moreso than speculations about how many male children were killed?

What Would An Omni God Have Done?

How could a omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent 
God who has no needs, Acts 17:24-25 [thus there was 
no need that hell even exist] create a humanity with 
free will and the ability to sin--knowing the horrific  
outcome Mt 7:13-14, when he could have created this 
humanity, like him, with free will and the inability to sin?
Thus in truly loving fashion, preventing billions of humans 
from suffering ETERNAL, unimaginable agony in hell-and 
the Bible actually teaches that he doesn't want anyone 
to go to hell 2 Peter 3:9! So there is no reason he couldn't 
and wouldn't have accomplished this--IF this alleged god 
of the Bible has all of these omni characteristics the Bible 
writers claim that he has.

From the Errancy  Discussion list, April 17, 1998:

Suffer, Little Children

From *The Skeptical Review* Jan/Mar 1993:

by Farrell Till

If you couldn't believe what you were seeing while reading the foregoing article [in The Skeptical Review, kwh] you probably have no background in Christian fundamentalism. A Christian writer who believes that the massacre of entire civilian populations in time of war, even to the point of genocide, is morally good! Is it possible that anyone living in a modern civilized society could really believe such a thing? Well, I assure you that your eyes weren't playing tricks on you. Bible fundamentalists really do defend all the bloody deeds that were presumably ordered by the Hebrew god Yahweh. Standing by this ancient war-god, even to the point of defending his commands to massacre babies, is an albatross that they must wear around their necks or else surrender their belief in Bible inerrancy. Apparently unable to bear the thought of life without their Bible-inerrancy security blanket, they choose to take a stand for killing babies.

Even Holy Massacres Can Have Their Drawbacks

Number 14 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* series:
The silly results of an intratribal holy war are examined.

by Farrell Till

In the Twilight Zone of biblical literature, silliness occurs in direct proportion to the length of the story. Our last two journeys into the Twilight Zone concerned events that followed the rape and murder of the Levite's concubine. After twice having Yahweh's counsel lead them into military disasters inflicted by the Benjamites defending the city where the atrocity against the Levite's concubine had occurred, the Israelites directed a third inquiry to Yahweh that brought them success, if a victory that had cost 40,000 lives can in any sense be considered a success. Anyway, in their third attack against the city of Gibeah, the Israelites withdrew in apparent defeat to trick the Benjamite forces into following them out of the city and into an ambush where "ten thousand select men from all Israel" were lying in wait (Judges 20:32-34). We are told that the battle was "fierce" and that "Yahweh defeated Benjamin before Israel" (v:35).

The Book Of Job

The following is an excerpt from Robert Ingersoll's lecture, *On Hell*. A shining example of the the twisted "morality" of Christianity's god:

Read the book of Job; read that! God met the devil and asked him where he had been, and he said: "Walking up and down the country," and the Lord said to him: "Have you noticed my man Job over here, how good he is?" And the devil: "Of course he's good, you give him everything he wants. Just take away his property and he'll curse you. You just try it." And he did try it, and took away his goods, but Job still remained good. The devil laughed and said that he had not been tried enough. Then the Lord touched his flesh, but he was still true. Then he took away his children [i.e., killed them, kwh], but he remained faithful, and in the end, to show how much Job made by this fidelity, his property was all doubled and he had more children than ever Job 42:12-15. If you have a child, and you love it, would you be satisfied with a God who would destroy it, and endeavor to make it up by giving you another that was better looking? No, you want that one; you want no other, and yet this is the idea of the love of children taught in the Bible (Applause.)

Love Thy Sister

Growing up as a Christian, I remember hearing preachers 
lament that people didn't read the Bible enough. That "God's 
word" should be venerated more and that people should 
know what was in "the book", because it was God's instructions 
to man concerning what he expected from man. I agree that 
people should read "the book" and know what is in it, because 
if they do and are honest with themselves they will find that the 
Bible is a book that is a 100% human production--with mind-
numbing absurdities and contradictions and unimaginable 
viciousness attributed to their allegedly omnibenevolent god. 

Number 11 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* series:

by Farrell Till

In previous trips to the Twilight Zone, we looked at some of the strange laws of the people who lived there. One of their strangest was known as the "Levirate law." This was a law that prohibited a widow without a son from marrying until she had given her brothers-in-law a chance to succeed where their brother had failed. As the humorist Dave Barry often says in his column, I am not making this up. This was an actual law that the inscrutable Yahweh had given to his chosen ones: "If brothers dwell together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel" (Deut. 25:5-6). Nothing was said, of course, about whether the widow had given birth to daughters before her husband died, because in the Twilight Zone females just didn't count. The deceased husband had to have produced a son and if not, the widow had to give her brothers-in-law a shot (no pun intended) at it.

Scooping and Copping

Number 10 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* series:

by Farrell Till

The Twilight Zone, where the children of Israel lived and worshiped their god Yahweh, was indeed a strange place. Perhaps the only thing stranger than this god was the legal system that he imposed on his "chosen people." On our last journey, we learned that Yahweh abhorred anything that was blemished, and so he had ordered all people with physical handicaps to distance themselves from the tabernacle altar, lest they profane Yahweh's holy sanctuary with their presence. Even blemished animals, especially those with crushed testicles, would profane Yahweh's altar if they were offered as sacrifices.

Quotes

God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That's not free will. It's like a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man says this we call him a psychopath. When god says the same we call him "loving" and build churches in his honor. ~William C. Easttom II

Yahweh, The God Of Gods

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1991 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

Many Bible fundamentalists believe that while the nations around them wallowed in the mire of polytheism the Hebrews practiced a strict monotheistic religion. Their insight into the nature of the one true God Yahweh had resulted, of course, from the personal relationships that Abraham and the other Hebrew patriarchs had experienced with Yahweh, who had routinely revealed himself to them in dreams, apparitions, and other manifestations. It makes good sermon material, but there's just one thing wrong with it. It isn't true.

Did The Judge Of All The Earth Always Do What Was Right?

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1998 January /February :

by Farrell Till 

Elsewhere in this issue (pp. 4-5), Roger Hutchinson continues his losing battle to prove that when Yahweh killed David's son, there was no violation of the biblical principle that children should not bear the iniquity of their fathers. This principle was stated in Deuteronomy 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." It was repeated in Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul that sins, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." My position has been that the killing of David's son for his parents' act of adultery was a clear violation of this principle, but Hutchinson has resorted to all sorts of verbal maneuvers to deny this conclusion.

I have decided that the best way to bury this issue is to let my rebuttal of Hutchinson's latest effort (pp. 5-7) and its predecessor articles speak for themselves as I take readers through the Bible to show other examples of where Yahweh violated his own moral code and held the innocent accountable for the "sins" of others. I hope that Hutchinson will go along on the trip and see for himself that he is trying to ride a dead horse.

Muddled Thinking

The muddled thinking of Christians who attempt to defend 
the vicious god of the Bible. From the Errancy discussion 
list, April 29, 1997:

Izz
Such a Lord, who murders innocent babies, is not 
good. God is not good. Of course, the story is a 
myth, it  never really happened. That is besides the 
point. God, as described in the Bible, makes Hitler 
look saintly.  Unfortunately, Hitler was real, but, 
thank God, God isn't. Still, how can you Christians 
worship a God who murders babies? Don't you
people have any morals? Its  bad enough you believe 
in God; what's worse, you are blind to his evil nature. 
You people worship an imaginary baby-killer.

Paul writes:
If this life were all of existance, you might have a point; however
Christians believe that we are primarily "spiritual" creatures made 
in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). This life is not all that matters. 
How cruel it would have been to preserve all of those babies of 
hard-hearted idolaters to mature and become like their parents 
only to lose their souls in eternity; but a loving and merciful God 
now has in his care the souls of those innocent children.

TILL
According to this logic, God should see that the children and babies 
of all sinful people are killed before "the age of accountability" so 
that this loving and merciful God could have in his care the souls 
of "these innocent children"? What made the Amalekite children so 
special that God wanted to "preserve" them any more than the 
children of other idolatrous people? We know from archaeological 
discoveries that Aztecs and Incas were idolatrous nations, who 
even  sacrificed children to their gods. Why didn't Yahweh 
"preserve"  their  children so that they wouldn't have grown up 
to be like their  "hard-hearted" idolatrous parents?

This "explanation" of the many Yahwistic massacres recorded in 
the OT is simply a last-ditch effort to explain a problem that is 
completely incompatible with both the biblical inerrancy doctrine 
and  the claim that God is loving and merciful. If for some reason 
the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites, etc. had to be ethnically 
exterminated, there was no reason at all to massacre the children 
and infants too. Why couldn't they have been brought back as 
captives, adopted into Hebrew families, and reared in the way 
that  Hebrew children were? That way, they would not have grown 
up to  be "hard-hearted" idolaters, any more than the Israelites 
themselves  were at times hard-hearted idolaters (but that's 
another story). I'd like to hear Paul's "explanation" of this.

Farrell Till

Children Of A Stupid God

In the following video Pat Condell, in his inimitable fashion, describes the "loving" god of the Bible:

Children of a stupid God

"God's" Characteristics

Responsibility, What Is Yahweh's Policy?

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

Dave Matson asks the question concerning the god of the Bible, Does God Need Praise and Glory?. The Bible clearly teaches that this god wants but doesn't need praise and glory. The men who wrote the Bible wrote themselves into a corner on this one. You see they describe this god as perfect and complete, therefore needing nothing. So these authors of the Bible have him only wanting praise and glory. But even if there are other alleged reasons why he created man, creating man was not something that he needed.

The Bible's authors claim that their god is all-knowing (plus all-powerful, all-loving, all-wise, perfect and complete and a few more I'm probably leaving out). And sure enough in Mt 7:13-14, they claim he knew that the majority of his beloved(?) humans would wind up in his eternal hell. Oops! So the Bible's hapless authors in their attempt to make their god-creation omni-everything, plus have the ultimate in punishment to scare people into their new religion, went too far. They have their all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, all-wise, perfect and complete  etc., god-creation willing for billions of his allegedly beloved humans to suffer unspeakable horrors in his eternal hell for something he only wanted but didn't need.

Then they have the absolute gall to claim this god loved his human creation so much that he sent his son to be crucified (bloodshed, injustice, pain and murder are around this god like flies on feces) to keep man from going to hell when he knew all along this "wonderful, loving sacrifice" would "save" only a comparative handful. If this sordid tale were true it would be more of an obligation on the part of this god for putting this flawed creation in such a precarious situation to begin with. This is no description of a God of love much less an all-loving God. This is a description of a infinitely terrible fiend. And what kind of an example is this god setting for humans concerning responsibility? The average human is much more responsible than this--responsibility, what's your policy? Every day millions of people choose to do the right thing. It is inconceivable that allowing billions of sentient humans to be tortured for eternity is the right thing. Responsibility, what is Yahweh's policy? His policy is infinite irresponsibility.

The Bible has the Creator allegedly acting in an infinitely horrible, irresponsible manner that no rational, loving human would ever be guilty of. Therefore, the god of the Bible cannot be anything but pure fiction.

How About An Unequivocal Miracle?

As someone astutely noticed, "God does not work in mysterious ways – 

he works in  ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.” 

Anonymous. If there is a God and he has an important message for 

me--he knows how to get my attention. From the Errancy Discussion 

list, 8-31-97:

MICHAEL FACKERELL

Nothing has impressed me too much so far. Its true though that I'm out of >my depth on some issues. I don't speak Hebrew for example, although two >different people (one of whom I know to be a Jewess) claimed they heard me >quoting Scripture in Hebrew when I was praying in tongues in different >situations. (See Mark 16:17). 

BEN

Now, I could see how psychologically someone could convince themselves they saw a miracle, or even had a "personal experience" with God, but to actually believe that oneself has spoken in tongues is beyond my comprehension. Either you have really tricked yourself or you are lying to us. I don't know which. But certainly you have not spoken in tounges. That would mean for God to intervene in the laws of nature for the sole purpose of making his presence known. If he is going to do this, why wouldn't he do something that works? In an earlier post today, I talked about this. He really needs some help when it comes to making his presence known. If he's going to let you talk in tounges, why doesn't he let you talk so loud that everyone on earth hears you? I'll tell you the answer. The only possible theist answer. God is unpredictable. Unpredictability is the earmark of unjustness. So it looks like we are dealing with an unjust God. And what greater injustice is there than to tell someone they will receive eternal paradise, then to send them to hell for the fun of it. If he really gets all this glee out of burning nonbelievers, then what makes you think he will keep his promise to you? Personally, I don't agree with any of this scenario; however, it does make more sense than your just God.

TILL

If Michael doesn't know Hebrew and yet spoke in that language, there could be no explanation for this except that God intervened and caused it to happen. If so, why did God intervene just to cause a miracle that would have been known by only the two Jews who were able to recognize that he was speaking Hebrew? If God is going to perform a miracle, why not making it something that would be unequivocal to the world? Suppose that God spoke from "heaven" with a booming voice that was heard by every person on earth in his/her own language and that he said that he was going to settle once and for all the question of his existence. He could, say, inform us that he was going to suspend tragedy for an entire year and that during this time, there would be no illnesses of any kind and no deaths. Those who were ill at the time would be immediately cured no matter what their infirmities were. Those with cancer, heart problems, diabetes, etc., etc., etc. would experience immediate cures. Those who were afflicted with any kind of physical or mental abnormalities would be healed. Those who had missing or crippled limbs, for example, would have them restored. Those who were deaf would hear; those who were blind would see. This would happen all over the world, and for an entire year nobody would die, and there would be no traffic accidents, earthquakes, volcanic explosions, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., etc., etc. Hunger would disappear, and poverty would be suspended. Now if God would do something like this, there would be no unbelievers left. He could even say during his initial announcement that he was going to do this to prove not just his existence but that the Bible was his inspired word and Christianity the only true religion. Instead of something like this, however, we get from God only paltry signs like an occasion tongue-speaker, whose story is completely unverifiable. As a miracle-worker, God could take a few tips from me. He could use a good publicity agent. Preachers have proven that they aren't up to the task.

Farrell Till

Sins Of The Fathers (4)

Till gives a good summation of the facts in this debate in his second response in this post, which Ariel has repeatedly side stepped:

ARIEL

sub 1: As an aside, my reference to an already existing three  year famine is not NEEDED to advance my point. It is based  as follows. II Samuel starts with an introduction that God was  already angry. Therefore God was quoted as offering 7 years  of famine. That means a full 7 years. 3 already and 3 to come  (the 7th is because after 6 years of famine, the ground may  be ready to produce in the 7th but the field must be planted and the crop grown and harvested. Since the people are still  waiting for food in year 7 it is the 7th year of famine).  I Chronicles does not prelude by saying "And God was angry".

TILL
No, the Chronicler didn't say this. In fact, he said that Satan 
had moved David to take the census. This is consistent with 
the Chronicler's whitewashing efforts in which he cut out all 
of the dirt about David and tried to make him look like Mr. 
Goody Two Shoes.

Yahweh's Character Shines Through Again

The marvelous, loving god of the Bible shines

through again. I wonder how many Christians are
aware of this part of Yahweh's character. From
the Errancy II discussion list, 7/21/07:

Augat

Someone explain to me how this command from

Yahweh was objectively moral:

"But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity where not found in the young woman, then you shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." Deuteronomy 22:20 As a Registered Nurse, we learned in our maternity classes that a large percentage of women do not bleed or have "the tokens" of losing their virginity during their first intercourse. So, was this command from Yahweh moral or not moral, considering the number of innocent virgins that were stoned on their wedding night.

TILL

A political problem in Illinois has been the refusal of some pharmacists to fill prescriptions for drugs like Plan B (also known as the morning-after pill), which they think could possibly result in the termination of a pregnancy in its initial stages. The refusal is illegal, but some pharmacists continue to do it. Women who are raped in this area know not to go to the Catholic hospital in Peoria, because the staff will refuse to administer anything that might interfere with a pregnancy.

I wonder if any of these health officials, who no doubt base their morality on their objective Bible source, ever stop to think about the biblical command to stone those who committed adultery. If they won't administer Plan B to a woman who was raped and taken to the hospital an hour or so later because they are afraid that they might terminate a pregnancy, then surely the practice of stoning women accused of adultery in biblical times resulted at least sometimes in the killing of the "persons" who had been conceived a short while ago in their wombs.

Farrell Till

When?

"...when does one's religious beliefs reach a point that they deserve scorn and contempt rather than 'respect'?" Clearly such a time is when Christians defend their god's command in Numbers 31:17-18, to kill all of the Midianite male little  ones, and kill all of the nonvirgin women, "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." To any Christians reading this, how can you possibly defend this order from your god?

From the Yahoo group, Alt.Bible.Errancy, 8-3-99:

Berne
Helpu, a woman taken as a war prize to be a wife is in reality a concubine. She is forced to marry that man against her will. I am sure that more than one would have preferred death rather than live like that. You are being real offensive in trying to defend that situation and call it just. I  would not want you to live next door to me, if you call things like that just.

TILL
Helpu is in my e-mail filter, so I didn't see the posting in which he apparently tried to defend the Israelite rape of the Midianite virgin girls. I have to agree with what Berne said about the offensiveness of someone who would even try to defend the killing and rape of children, and when I read this, I had to wonder what Holman thinks about this familiar biblicist tactic of arguing that if God did it or commanded it, then it had to have been right no matter how morally offensive it may be when just ordinary humans do the same thing. In this case, Helpu is defending the murder and rape of children. Do you understand what I am saying? Helpu is defending the murder and rape of children.

Number 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I find attempts to defend such as this repugnant and see no reason why those who would defend such should not receive the scorn and ridicule of all rational people. Would this be a case, Holman, where one would be justified in calling Helpu ignorant? If not, what if he were defending the murder and rape of children in Kosovo? In other words, just when does one's religious beliefs reach a point that they deserve scorn and contempt rather than "respect"?

I say that Helpu is ignorant for defending such as this and see no reason why I should apologize for saying so.

Farrell Till

Biblical Inerrancy And Common Sense

I Samuel tells the story of Yahweh ordering the 
massacre of a whole  nation of people, including 
children--even infants, for something their ancestors 
did approximately 400 years earlier. I have to 
wonder how many Christians even know this story 
is in the Bible. But, alas,  I know how Christians 
reason in other situations found  in the Bible that 
are just as incriminating for their god. They manufacture 
how-it-could-have-been excuses for their god which in 
their deluded minds gets him off the hook. The problem 
is these are nothing but baseless hypotheses--i .e.,  
theories that have nothing to back them up to establish 
them as true. Sad. The following is from the the II Errancy 
discussion list, December, 1999:

CHAD
Did they follow in the ways of their ancestors?

POPE CHARLES
No, god states it was because of their ancestors actions long ago.
See I Samuel 15:2-6. Not because they were bad. But because
of what their ancestors did centuries earlier.

Tim
Chad has been informed of this three times (me, you, Farrell).
I wonder how long he will cling to this explanation, which is not
supported by the Bible.

TILL
This massacre, if it happened, was purely and simply an act 
motivated by a 400-year-old grudge.

2 Thus says Yahweh of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for

what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up 
out of Egypt.
3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, 
child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in

Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers, and ten thousand 
soldiers of Judah.

5 Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in

the valley.

6 Saul said to the Kenites, "Go! Leave! Withdraw from

 among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; 
for you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when 
they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites withdrew from 
the Amalekites.

The reason--and the only reason--that Yahweh gave for 

ordering the destruction of the Amalekites was "what they 
did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of 
Egypt." The reason--and the only reason--that Saul gave 
for allowing the Kenites safe passage out of Amalekite 
territory was that "you showed kindness to all the people 
of Israel when they came up out of Egypt."

All of this inerrantist nonsense about how "wicked" the 
Amalekites were is just a desperation attempt to rationalize 
an atrocity that would shock the moral sensibilities of the 
world community if an army should do something like this 
today. There is nothing--NOTHING--in the Bible that suggests 
that the Amalekites of that time were any more "wicked"
than any other contemporary nation, but even if there were 
such an indication in the Bible, this would not justify the 
order to include even children and infants in the massacre.

If the US army should raid an Indian reservation today for 
the express purpose of avenging an attack that the ancestors 
of these people had made centuries ago, even Bible inerrantists 
would be morally outraged, yet they read the story of the 
Amalekite massacre and lean over backwards to try to
find some way to justify it.

That is what belief in biblical inerrancy will do to a person's 
common sense.

Farrell Till

Sins Of The Fathers (3)

Farrell Till continues his rebuttal of David Ariel's evasions:

The lengthy section that Ariel skipped over has been snipped.

ARIEL First I maintain that when David made his speech "I alone  sinned" it was David's opinion and plea which any righteous  monarch would use before his God.

TILL

YOU maintain this, but in this forum we like to see arguments 

to support what one maintains. Such arguments are 

conspicuously absent in your replies. Please understand that 

argumentation by asserting, question begging, and special 

pleading is frowned upon in this forum.

Is it your contention that David was wrong when he said that 

he ALONE had sinned? Furthermore, David asked a question: 

"What have these sheep done?" If David was not the only one 

who had sinned, then state specifically what the "sheep" had 

done and support your answer with textual evidence.

By the way, I hope you will study this posting to take notice 

of how a serious debater will take his opponent's material 

and reply to it point by point.