God Loves the Smell of Burning Flesh: Human Sacrifice in the Bible

God Loves the Smell of Burning Flesh: Human Sacrifice in the Bible April 7, 2018

World famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig is known for his hilariously inept defense of the savage excesses of his God, who apparently isn’t able to present a defense himself.

For the Canaanite genocide, Craig’s punch line is that every Canaanite adult deserved death because they sacrificed children to their god, all the children hacked to pieces were actually getting a ticket to heaven, and we must reserve our sympathy for the Israelite soldiers forced to perform this butchery. (Craig’s insulting argument is eviscerated here.)

Let’s move from genocide to another area of biblical violence, human sacrifice.

Abraham and Isaac

The Abraham and Isaac story in Genesis 22 is often given to show God’s rejection of human sacrifice and, as it is in the Bible today, that may well have been the purpose. But, like a cheerful fairy tale that comes from a darker original, the Isaac story may not initially have had its happy ending.

The documentary hypothesis (discussed more here) argues that the first five books of the Bible are a patchwork of four ancient sources with differing agendas. Read the Abraham and Isaac chapter closely to see how it might have originally read (my source: The Bible with Sources Revealed by Richard Elliott Friedman, p. 65).

  • Verses 11–15 have an angel stop Abraham and declare the whole thing a test, but where did the angel come from? God had no problem talking directly to Abraham to demand this inhuman sacrifice, and then an angel pops up from nowhere? That section looks like an addition.
  • Verses 16–17 say, “Because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you.” Done what? If Isaac was not withheld, apparently he did get sacrificed.
  • Abraham and Isaac set out together in verse 6, but verse 19 concludes the story with, “Then Abraham returned to his servants.” Alone.

There’s very little condemnation of child sacrifice in a story that rewards a man for his willingness to perform it.

But doesn’t the Bible reject human sacrifice?

Just in case anyone was unclear that the Old Testament comes from a post-Bronze Age Mesopotamian culture, it tells us 37 times that God loves the pleasing aroma of burning flesh. And God has a big appetite: “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock.” (Exodus 34:19). But God is reasonable. One verse later, he clarifies: “Redeem all your firstborn sons”—that is, sacrifice an animal instead.

We find a similar demand in Deuteronomy 18:10, “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire.”

Human sacrifice in the Bible

The Bible acknowledges that sacrificing humans is powerful mojo, because that’s how the Moabite god Chemosh beat Israel’s god Yahweh (2 Kings 3:27). The combined forces of Israel, Judah, and Edom were about to defeat Moab when the Moabite king sacrificed his son to Chemosh. The result: “There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel, so they broke off the attack and returned to their homeland.” (More here.)

Though the Bible talks a good story as it rejects human sacrifice, it’s a sock puppet, and you can make the Bible say just about whatever you want. If you think God can’t say precisely the opposite of what he commanded before, then you underestimate an omnipotent god! Take a look:

Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal. (Exodus 13:2)

But nothing that a person owns and devotes to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death. (Leviticus 27:28–9)

As if bragging to his drinking buddies, God laughs about it afterwards. To teach the stiff-necked Israelites who’s boss, God said,

So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah (Ezekiel 20:25–6).

Now what was William Lane Craig saying about sacrificing children to gods? Looks like there was a lot of that going around, and not just among the bad guys.

Concluded with examples in the New Testament in part 2.

Men rarely (if ever)
manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. 

Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
— Robert A. Heinlein

 

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 7/29/14.)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

"I'm not interested in defeating anyone in a logic duel or philosophy duel. This isn't ..."

How Compelling is Christianity’s Cumulative Case?
"Arguing against eternal-life-promising religions is pointless unless you have come up with a cure for ..."

How Compelling is Christianity’s Cumulative Case?
"Morality and mortality don't cause existential dread, etc. in me.I have a workable morality based ..."

How Compelling is Christianity’s Cumulative Case?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Kendall Fields

    You guys are getting more and more pitiful in trying to use the Bible to say God approved of child sacrifice. As the old saying goes “even the Devil can quote scripture to suit his purposes”.

    • Doubting Thomas

      Did you ever think that the problem might be the scripture itself and not the people quoting it?

      If only god wasn’t such a shitty writer…..

      • Cozmo the Magician

        Brings to mind EVERY politician that hates it when politfact or other websites just quote the EXACT words they used and call it ‘fake news’. Little donny tweet fingers is the best “I never said that I never said…” yeah donny, that MIGHT have worked before the internet, but today.. not so much.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Gold in digital video form(at):

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ4RX5PsnFM

        • Damn that irrefutable evidence!

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Hey, you can’t expect adults to keep up with all these kiddy fads like ‘internet’ and ‘yooootooob’ and ‘sell-fones’. Not to worry, sure they will just disappear soon like that rock music stuff.

      • Kendall Fields

        Nope the fault lies only in the people.

        • Who needs evidence and reason when you’ve got the witness of the Holy Spirit, amirite??

        • Zeta

          In another atheist blog, I have been told many times that the holy spirit whispers truth to believers. But then, it is a fact that believers have fought among themselves over many issues over the centuries, even fundamental issues such as the divinity of Jesus (He is also the HS, right?) himself. This means that he has been whispering different versions of the same things to different believers or theologians. This is weird. One would expect a god to at least be consistent in his whisperings. The quarrels also imply that these believers did not believe what they heard from their own god. Very strange indeed! Since Christians over the last 2000 years got many scientific facts wrong, the HS must also be a science ignoramus.

          The HS does not appear to be a reliable source of facts or even Christian doctrines.

        • I choose to think that the HS is just forgetful. He’s really old, after all.

      • Kendall Fields

        Also how is God a bad writer? The fault lies solely with you if you are a horrible reader.

        • se habla espol

          Your god is a shitty writer could only be true if the WhllyBabble weren’t written by a bunch of ghost writers without the gods’ input.

        • Because, according to you, he doesn’t mean what he actually says in the Bible.

          Must be a shame to be omniscient but not able to get your perfect message out coherently. And we think being God is easy!

    • Cozmo the Magician

      Pretty stupid god if his words are nothing more than ammo for his biggest rival. Maybe what god needed more than prophets and blind followers and such would have been just ONE GOOD EDITOR. You know, somebody that could actually read and write. Somebody with an education. Instead all he had was at most semi illiterate yes men who would just nod their heads and agree to any idiotic tweet scripture they were told to follow.

      • Kendall Fields

        So tell me how does God agree to child sacrifice when those verses about the firstborn are about devoting them to God.

        • Do you not understand what child sacrifice is? Do you not understand that God in the Bible demands it?

          You seem to be stuck on something quite simple.

        • Nankay

          How many children did your god kill in Noah’s flood?

        • Kendall Fields

          We may never know.

        • Nankay

          And you are ok with that? Drowning toddlers and babies, puppies, kittens, adults, elderly, disabled? what your god did there , you’re ok with?!

        • Kendall Fields

          God passed his judgment on the world and the people brought it upon themselves though I feel for the children because their parents dragged them down with them.

        • Nankay

          Yes, you feel so much for the children that you continue to worship the being responsible for their horrible deaths. I see. Your god is a monster.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how is God a monster? The children died because of their parents’ sins so if anyone is the monster it is the parents you should be angry at.

        • Nankay

          Your god is a monster because it kills innocents because of the sins of others. Are you ok with the State killing the children of a murderer? Should the elderly grandparents of a bank robber be jailed? what are you saying?

        • Kendall Fields

          God is the author of life while we are not. He decides who lives and who dies. Plus you don’t know the condition of the lives of the children at that time.

        • Nankay

          So Monster. check. Ok with worshiping a monster. Double check. Got it.

        • Kendall Fields

          Still calling God monster for punishing sin just proves my pint on how lost you are. I will pray for you my friend.

        • ORigel

          If the condition of their lives was poor, that’s also God’s fault. Not that he exists, but if he existed, it would be.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how would that be? God gives you the choice to do right and if you are a parent you should be caring for your children.

        • ORigel

          Since God created them knowing perfectly well that they’ll sin and since he had the power to stop them, he is responsible for it.

        • Kendall Fields

          No people are responsible for sin. God brings you into the world but gives you a chance to do right and wrong just like Adam and Eve. So in the end God is not responsible but mankind is. However we need God to help us because we cannot defeat sin without him.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          The parents didn’t drown their kids. They were all just living lives and whoosh! -drowned by Jesus.

        • Kendall Fields

          Also do not compare animals to humans.

        • ORigel

          If you are multicellular and have an internal digestive tract, you’re an animal, like it or not.

        • Kendall Fields

          We are humans like it or not. Importance of animals is not comparable to that of humans.

        • ORigel

          Correct! They’re more important than us, collectively. Without them and our crops (pollinated by animals) we would all die. Yet animals don’t need us at all.

        • Kendall Fields

          Nope. We need them for food but they need us even more.

        • ORigel

          Before about 1200, New Zealand was unpopulated. Somehow the Maori came to islands with moas, kiwis, bats, and parrots. If animals need us even more, why were there animals on uninhabited New Zealand?

        • Kendall Fields

          Tell me for many animals not in human care they have very short lives.

        • ORigel

          And the moas I mentioned were thriving before the Maori hunted them all to death. Their existence was known because naturalists found skeletons.

        • Kendall Fields

          And?

        • ORigel

          Animals would be better off, on the whole, if we never advanced beyond tribes-of-warring-australopithicines.

        • Greg G.

          Whales live longer in the wild.

        • Greg G.

          And what happened to the moas?

        • (((Mikey goes to Hollywood)))

          Moaed down, in the primes of their lives.

        • Greg G.

          IIRC, there were large birds that preyed on the moas. I wondered what they thought of the new bipedal monkeys as their food supply dwindled.

        • Susan

          Importance of animals is not comparable to that of humans.

          Humans are animals.

        • Susan

          do not compare animals to humans.

          Humans are animals.

        • epeeist

          If the estimates are correct then there were about 20 million humans on the planet at the time of the supposed flood. A simple calculation shows your god killed 99.99996% of the human population with the rest of the biosphere as collateral damage. In another post you raise communists killing people, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 10% of the population of the USSR, he was a complete novice compared to your god.

          It is also worth pointing out that the simulation of the method it used in these killings is considered as torture. In other words, we are far more moral than your psychopathic, genocidal god.

    • Lark62

      Your bible COMMANDS child sacrifice (girls only) in the 10 Commandments. (There is only one list identified as “the 10 Commandments” in the bible, and it is not the one christians try to plant on government property.)

      • Kendall Fields

        And where in the ten commandments does God demand child sacrifice?

        • Lark62

          Don’t you read the Bible?

          Exodus 34 is the list identified as “The Ten Commandments.” No other list in the bible is called “The Ten Commandments.”

          In between “Celebrate the feast of unleavened bread” and “Rest on the seventh day” is this:

          “19 The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed.”

          If it is the first thing to pop out of a womb, and it isn’t a donkey or a son, it has to be killed.

          You really ought to read your book.

        • Kendall Fields

          You obviously don’t know how to read the Bible. Also those are called the “ten commandments” as a part of a covenant God made with Israel on what they are to do. Also you want to compare humans to animals huh?

        • Lark62

          What!?

          Exodus 34 is the covenant god made with his people.

          Duh, on steroids.

          “10 Then the Lord said: “I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the Lord, will do for you. 11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.”

          If you have a problem with the sacrificing of first born humans being mentioned in the same breath as the sacrificing of first born animals, take it up with your precious deity. I merely quoted your book.

        • Kendall Fields

          It doesn’t mention sacrificing humans. You are just taking what is written and manipulating it to suit you.

        • Lark62

          Yes, it freaking does mention sacrificing humans. The first out of every womb must be sacrificed. There are exactly two exceptions: you may kill something else instead of a donkey and you must kill something else instead of a son. There are no other exceptions.

          Read your book.

        • Kendall Fields

          No it doesn’t. I read it and I can say that you are lying.

        • Lark62

          Exodus 34

          19The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

          That passage mentions both livestock and people.

        • Kendall Fields

          And it says redeem your sons and nothing about killing humans.

        • Lark62

          The first born of every womb must be either sacrificed or redeemed, and only donkeys and sons may redeemed.

          Daughters are human.

        • Kendall Fields

          And does it say sacrifice firstborn daughters? No it doesn’t.

        • Lark62

          Is a daughter a donkey or son? The first thing of every womb is sacrificed except donkeys and sons.

        • Kendall Fields

          It never said that. It said if a donkey cannot be redeemed to break its neck. Nothing about daughters.

        • se habla espol

          If every doesn’t include humans, then there’s no need to make special provision for sons: the only need to exmpt irstborn sons is because the commandment does include them. However, then either (a) the commandment does include humans and commands the sacrifice of daughters or (b) does not include daughters as human, since there’s no exemption for them

        • Translation: “La la la! I can’t hear you!”

          http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/lalalala.gif

        • se habla espol

          Since humans are animals (neither vegetable nor mineral), and since the writer of those ten commandments included all the animals, including humans, what’s your problem? Might you be imagining American human exceptionalism of some sort?

        • Yes–Exodus 34 holds the 10 Commandments (since the earlier set were smashed when Moses got angry).

          Stop and dwell on that for a minute. And then go re-read Exodus 34 to familiarize yourself with your error-free Bible.

        • Good point. I hadn’t noticed that girls are sacrificed if they’re the firstborn.

          Another example of a loving God being A-OK with human sacrifice. Huh–who knew? I mean, besides Kendall, because she is a serious student of the Bible.

        • Lark62

          Ha. I assumed Kendall was a “he.” Probably gender bias, since I am a she myself and don’t want to be in the same category as anyone so thick.

        • That was just a guess on my part. Names can be ambiguous.

          Perhaps we can just say that Kendall is an embarrassment for whichever intellectual team they happen to be playing on and leave it at that.

        • Lark62

          Tru dat

    • RichardSRussell

      If not the Bible, what WOULD you suggest as a source of that information?

      • Kendall Fields

        Tell me does God approve of child sacrifice?

        • RichardSRussell

          Wait, you’re not willing to believe the Bible, but you ARE willing to take MY word for it?

        • Kendall Fields

          I believe what is written in the Bible. I am asking you because you seem to know what is in the Bible.

        • RichardSRussell

          A more pertinent question is why you should believe anything written in the Bible. It’s riddled with contradictions and impossibilities and thus is a completely unreliable source for any sort of knowledge.

        • Kendall Fields

          And those “contradictions” are falsehoods you guys come up with. And you say impossibilities because man cannot accomplish it. So do not try to say the Bible is false because you cannot accept it for you blind yourself to the truth.

        • RichardSRussell

          The contradictions are there for anyone to see. All we have to do is point them out. And anyone who gives the book an honest reading will agree. Check out this side-by-side comparison of the “resurrection” story of the 4 gospels if you don’t believe me. That’s the most important story in all of Christianity, and the only 4 records we have of it can’t get it straight.

          As to impossibilities, let me cite just the one: the circular pot that was 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around (1 Kings 7:23), giving a value of π = 3 exactly. Really, all I need to do is find a single impossibility to refute the contention that the Bible is error free, but there are tons more. Check out C. Dennis McKinsey’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy for an encyclopedic review.

          So again I ask, “Why do you choose to believe such a fantastic source of misinformation?” You must have some kind of reason for it.

        • Kendall Fields

          And they got their answers from eyewitnesses who generally do not have the same answer. Also your “chronology” is out of order. So you guys need to stop trying. And how does the measurements make it impossible. You say it has misinformation yet you are the only one who can’t understand it and only say it has misinformation because you refuse to accept it.

        • RichardSRussell

          Dude, you cannot have a circle which is exactly 3 times as big around as it is across. The ratio of circumference to diameter is π (3.14159265…), one of the basic physical constants of the Universe. If you can’t comprehend a simple physical fact like that, don’t claim that I’m “the only one who can’t understand it”.

          As to the chronology being “out of order”, where did it go wrong? Specifically, where? I took everything right straight out of the Bible, in the order it was listed there. If there are errors, blame it on the source material. That’s what I always do.

          Finally, who is this “they” who “got their answers from eyewitnesses”? There was no antecedent for the pronoun.

        • Kendall Fields

          No you didn’t and there are no errors in the Bible. Also did it say it was a perfect circle. And pi is not one of the basic constants of the Universe. It is a component of math. Also the “they” are the writers of the Gospels. You refuse to understand anything in the Bible so you say it is impossible. So it may not be you can’t understand it but you refuse to understand it.

        • RichardSRussell

          “No you didn’t”, you say? Once again, no antecedent. No, I didn’t what?

          “There are no errors in the Bible”, you say? Bats are a form of bird? The mustard seed is the smallest seed of all? Bunnies chew their cuds? (I could go on and on, but as I said before, all it takes is a single counter-example to refute your ridiculous claim of inerrancy, and there you have 3 of them.)

          “Pi is not one of the basic constants of the Universe”, you say? Tell it to Wikipedia. While you’re at it, try to find me either (1) someplace in the Universe where it’s not a constant or (2) some other Universe where it’s exactly 3.

          Are you completely off your meds?

        • Kendall Fields

          Tell me where it is a constant of the universe gravity isn’t constantly 9.80 m/s^2 across the universe and neither is pi. Also nothing is perfect so it also stands to be rounded numbers. You didn’t record what was in the Bible and only took pieces to suit yourself. And do you know verse means by birds it means creatures that fly like bats. Also rabbits chewing the cud is meant as a description and not about scientific exactness. Also the mustard seed being considered the smallest is used as parable not in full science. Also full thanks for calling me insane it makes me feel great.

        • RichardSRussell

          Man, it doesn’t get any simpler or more widely acknowledged than the irrefutable fact that π is a constant. If you can’t understand something as basic as that (and in fact even deny it!), why should we believe a single thing you have to say about anything? Yeah, that’s why I ask if you’re off your meds, because you have to be delusional to dispute a basic fact that’s been known since antiquity, forms the basis for about half of plane geometry, and can readily be verified by any sentient being on the planet.

        • Kendall Fields

          Pi is a constant yet we cannot agree on its exactness.

        • RichardSRussell

          Pi is a constant yet we cannot agree on its exactness.

          Yes, we can. There is no dispute as to what its value is for as many decimal places as you care to examine. There’s no disagreement. Except from you.

          Once again, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. First you say π is not a constant, now you admit that it is. Again, why should any thinking being pay the least attention to anything you have to say? You are one of the least reliable and most inconsistent spouters of nonsense I’ve ever encountered, even when it’s possible to decipher your context-free, semi-coherent, poorly punctuated ramblings.

        • Kendall Fields

          So tell me what the last decimal place of pi is? Apparently the concept of sarcasm was lost on you. Such a pity. And how am I not reliable? In fact you have been more inconsistent with your lies and “quoting” of scripture that it becomes pitiful.

        • RichardSRussell

          ∏ is a transcendental number. It goes on indefinitely. There isn’t a final digit; there is no “last decimal place”. Did you read the Wikipedia article I referred you to? This is all explained there. I shouldn’t have to explain 7th grade geometry to you.

          “How am I not reliable?”, you ask. Re-read the above exchange to find several salient examples of where you say 2 opposing things within a few paragraphs of each other.

          You accuse me of lying. Please point out the specifics. Where did I lie? What did I say that was knowingly wrong?

        • ORigel

          Pi goes on forever. There is no last digit.

        • Kendall Fields

          And that is the point I am making.

        • ORigel

          We can agree on its exactness for a trillion decimal points, aka for all intents and purposes. And a god could at least do 22/7.

        • Kendall Fields

          But you still don’t know the last number of pi.

        • ORigel

          You seem to be implying that there is a last number of pi. But there is no last number to know. Any god would understand that.

          Even teachers of fifth grade students wouldn’t accept a student rounding pi to 3. They generally have students round to 3.14, or 22/7. Therefore, your god can’t even pass a late elementary/middle school area of circles worksheet with his rounding.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yet we round decimals to whole numbers all the time. And yes there is a last number just we don’t have any mechanism in the world that can decipher the last decimal number of an irrational number. Also did they say it was exactly 30 cubits. And gets pathetic when you try to say God doesn’t know how to math. You have my sympathies.

        • ORigel

          Wrong. THERE IS NO LAST DIGIT TO AN IRRATIONAL NUMBER. They are endless.

          And just pull up area of circles online problems and round pi to 3. Your answers won’t be accepted.

          And God doesn’t know math, since a non-existent entity doesn’t know anything. But really I am presenting a dilemma for you. If your god wrote the Bible, he is poorer at math than an elementary schooler.

        • Kendall Fields

          Endless to the human comprehension.

        • ORigel

          And to the divine comprehension, if there is such a thing.

        • Kendall Fields

          And I am pretty sure God would know the final number of pi but I am not putting hi up to the test. Also God is real.

        • ORigel

          With curved spaces, you can get a value of pi different from the normal one. Near a black hole, for instance, you can get a value of pi that equals 3.

          That’s the best we and your god can do. In Euclidian geometry, pi doesn’t have a last digit.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how do you know God can’t do it? We humans are limited in our knowledge unless you want to say you have the same knowledge as God.

        • ORigel

          Because pi = 4(1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9….) which is an endless sequence. If God existed, he would tell you that.

        • Kendall Fields

          Uh huh.

        • ORigel

          If your omniscient God existed and you asked him the last digit of pi, he would tell you there is no last digit. But ask him for 10^10000000000th place of pi and he would tell you. Get it?

        • Kendall Fields

          No I don’t think you get it.

        • ORigel

          If you didn’t drop out of middle school, you’d probably get my point.

          Like there is no largest number (you can always add 1), there is no last digit to pi (there are always more digits beyond).

        • Kendall Fields

          To the human comprehension there is no “last” number.

        • ORigel

          Ask God to tell you the 10^1000000^100000000000^1000000^10000000th digit of pi. Understand that its supposed to be exponants. I don’t have a way to display them properly. He’ll tell you it. Now, you ask, how close is the number to infinity. 0 percent is the answer you’d get.

        • Kendall Fields

          Why don’t you ask God? And even then you are trying to test him which is not righteous.

        • ORigel

          I’m not testing your God. Let’s try this again. If I was omniscient and you ask me the 1000000000^100000^100000000^10000005^314159265358979323846th place of pi, I could tell you the answer. But that would be 0% of the way there.

        • Kendall Fields

          Sure you aren’t.

        • Michael Neville

          π has been calculated to over a trillion places. It’s transcendental number, which means it’s infinite, but a trillion places is pretty exact.

          You’re not doing yourself any good by arguing about things you quite obviously don’t understand.

        • TheNuszAbides

          You’re not doing yourself any good by arguing about things you quite obviously don’t understand.

          i can’t imagine KF feeling any kind of shame or self-questioning among puny mortals. the only thing they will ever admit to needing to understand is god-swill~God’s Will~(TM), and being Righteous(TM) for Team Yahwehjesus means they get to gloat over how God is better at everything than anyone else.

          and if KF is a poe it’s an exceptionally tedious one.

        • epeeist

          Pi is a constant yet we cannot agree on its exactness

          As Michael Neville says it is a transcendental number so you aren’t going to get an exact value. However what you can get are limits which bound it, the first person to do this was Archimedes (287–212 BCE) who calculated it as between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71. If a mere mortal could do such a calculation then one has to wonder why your god inspired “holy book” contains such a poor estimate.

        • The least that a perfect god would do is make sure that they documented just one dimension–either diameter or circumference. That would bypass the entire problem.

          What we have instead is a dunderhead god, which is kind of adorable.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          the convergence rate of the leibniz series (wikipedia) is terrible but it’s simple:

          pi/4 = 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + …

          it’s also an alternating series (wikipedia), so the partial sums themselves are lower and upper *bounds* (the word “limits” might be confusing …).

          btw, “between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71” is a bit odd, 3 1/7 is the upper bound.

        • RichardSRussell

          First you say “there are no errors in the Bible” and then you say “nothing is perfect”. Clearly you wouldn’t recognize a contradiction if Jesus himself called your attention to it.

        • Kendall Fields

          Not really but I think I should have been more specific. Nothing is perfect except for God. Thank you for reminding me.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          So the “perfect” god gave us an imperfect book expressing his word, and then when he saw his followers literally killing each other over differing interpretations of that word, he shrugged and said “Eh, whatever, I’ve got better things to do.”

        • Kendall Fields

          And what is imperfect about the Bible?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          You yourself said nothing is perfect except for God.

        • Kendall Fields

          And?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          So why ask me what’s imperfect about the Bible when you admit it’s imperfect (plus, I’ve already told you)

        • Kendall Fields

          And your point is?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s poorly written self-contradictory retconned fanfic whose adherents claim its every word is inerrant, even WHEN it contradicts itself.

        • Kendall Fields

          Also Christians mostly got into conflict with other Christians not over scripture but because of leadership.

        • Michael Neville

          But they used scripture for justify their conflicts. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses quoted the Bible 104 times.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Also your ‘god’s fault.

          If it made leadership apparent, then there wouldn’t be a problem and 44,000-odd sects.

          So your ‘god’ fucked up, again.

        • Nothing is perfect except for God

          And the Bible, right? You told us that it’s error free.

        • Lark62

          Kendall lives by the verse “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain goalpost, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

        • Michael Neville

          Well played, madam, well played.

        • Profound words indeed.

        • epicurus

          Quote of the day candidate

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          OOOoooo, that was *cruel*

          (me likey! 😉 )

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          No, I think what you’re saying was “nothing perfect can exist”

          Then you said “‘god’ is perfect”

          QED: ‘god’ doesn’t exist.’

          This is *fun* 😉

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          9.8 m/sec squared is ONLY the gravity on Earth, dictated by the laws of physics.

          Where there’s more mass, gravity is higher, less mass, lower.

          And pi IS the same EVERYPLACE we’ve been able to see it at work, including astronomy of being able to see a star as a halo around an intervening star.

          So give it up. Your ‘bible’ is bad retconned fanfic.

        • there are no errors in the Bible

          Since everyone is assigning homework, here’s my addition: when was the Last Supper? Was it the Passover meal, or was it on the night before Passover? John has a different answer than the other 3 gospels.

        • Lark62

          And – Was Adam created before everything else or after everything but Eve?

        • (((Mikey goes to Hollywood)))

          Or simultaneously with Eve?
          Genesis 1:27

        • Michael Neville

          And pi is not one of the basic constants of the Universe.

          Actually you’re wrong. π shows up in numerous equations. For instance the frequent appearance of π in complex analysis can be related to the behavior of the exponential function of a complex variable, this is known as Euler’s Formula. Many cosmological calculations involve π. Other branches of science and mathematics, such as statistics, physics, Fourier analysis, and number theory, also include π in important formulae.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Asshole, the book isn’t even consistent with ITSELF!

          If it was any other book and you didn’t have an emotional NEED to declare its ‘truth’, you’d see it in a moment.

          I really would have enjoyed YOU being one of those people who were fooled by somebody reading ‘bible’ verses, attributing them to the ‘koran’, and then seeing what the reaction was.

          On second thought, no…I wouldn’t want to be responsible for your total psychotic break.

        • Kodie

          I know you can’t tell from where you are, but you sound like a shallow uneducated gullible brainwashed moron, so why should we listen to you?

        • Zeta

          Kendall Fields: “there are no errors in the Bible
          No errors? Almost right at the beginning, Genesis 1.2 is wrong: Earth was created (or already existed) before anything else in the Universe.

          More errors to come if you are interested to read about more nonsense in your god-inspired “holy” book.

        • Kendall Fields

          Once again you show you can’t read the Bible. It said the Earth was without formed and not that it was created before the universe was. So you need to really stop trying. It gets pitiful after your first two tries.

        • “Pitiful”? Get an objective evaluation of your own arguments. They suck.

        • Zeta

          You are the one who can’t read your own ancient book.
          Genesis 1.2: “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness
          was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

          If Earth had not been created in Genesis 1.2, why was there water? So water was created before anything else? Why was Earth mentioned there? When was Earth created according to your reading of the ancient book?

        • Kendall Fields

          The waters means space itself which is like a vast ocean.

        • Zeta

          Waters = space? Inventing a new meaning when you are at a loss for a proper response. This is laughable. What is then “the face of the waters”? Space has a face?

          You are also evading my other questions? Why was Earth specifically mentioned there if it has not been created yet? When was Earth created according to your reading of the ancient book? Citation of verse(s) please.

        • Kendall Fields

          I haven’t evaded your questions I have answered them.

        • Zeta

          I am surprised by your dishonesty even for an apologist.
          Since you seem to have a comprehension problem, I am listing below the questions you have evaded even though it is easy for any reader to simply read the recent exchanges:

          1. Why was Earth specifically mentioned there if it has not been created yet?
          2. When was Earth created according to your reading of the ancient book?
          Also
          3. What is then “the face of the waters”? Space has a face?

        • Kendall Fields

          It mentions Earth was without form meaning it wasn’t created yet. Earth’s lifetime depends on the timing and it what it means by the “face of the waters” means space itself not that space has a face.

        • Zeta

          You are incoherent.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how am I incoherent?

        • igotbanned999

          I wish people would stop using this argument. The figure given in the Bible is obviously just a rough estimate. Do you really expect it to specifically say 3.14159265 etc.? Not to mention that you’re implicitly assuming that bronze age people could build something in the shape of a mathematically perfect circle, which is just silly. This is one of the arguments that makes us atheists look bad, along with others like the ‘bats aren’t birds’ thing.

        • RichardSRussell

          You think it makes us look bad? Wow! With only 1 significant digit of precision, they could’ve figured out that being 10 cubits across would give you 31 cubits of circumference. With 2 digits, they could’ve come close at 31½ cubits.

          Of course it was just a ruff estimate! That’s the whole point! To claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of an omniscient being (which these loons always do) utterly flies in the face of the fact that it was written by fallible human beings.

          And bats aren’t birds; they’re mammals, something that the omnipotent deity who created them specifically provided for but somehow or other neglected to mention to the “inspired” author of Deuteronomy 14:11-18. How hard would it have been to get it right? Ridiculously easy, right? Just leave the word “bat” off the the list of birds. But no — unsophisticated, unscientific human beings of the age didn’t know the difference, and it was they, not God, who made the error.

        • igotbanned999

          Even most Biblical inerrantists don’t claim that every figure and number is meant to be accurate down to the tiniest detail. You would need an infinite amount of pages to write out the full value of pi. Obviously that chapter wasn’t meant as a technical manual so an estimate is fine.

          And bats aren’t birds according to modern scientific classification. According to the ancient Hebrew system, however, they belonged to the same category of creature. So it was accurate within the cultural context of the time.

        • epeeist

          So it was accurate within the cultural context of the time

          So you are saying truth is relative to a cultural context?

        • igotbanned999

          Let me try to be explain this again. The word used in the original Hebrew is ‘owph, which literally translates to ‘thing with wings’. Bats have wings. Therefore, the original passage is correct.

        • epeeist

          The word used in the original Hebrew is ‘owph, which literally
          translates to ‘thing with wings’. Bats have wings. Therefore, the
          original passage is correct.

          If it was the case that the bible was the product of a perfect and omniscient god then it would be the case that the bible is a correct description of the world; however the bible is not a correct description of the world; hence it cannot be the production of a perfect and omniscient god.

          Now the Hebrew may well mean “things that fly” but this is an inadequate description of bats and birds, these creatures are dissimilar in many ways. So why did a perfect and omniscient god produce separate words for each of these kinds of creature?

        • igotbanned999

          Such a classification was perfectly serviceable for the people back then. It’s not like modern English doesn’t have similar problems, such as the use of the word ‘bug’ to mean both insects and arachnids. By moving the goalposts to a different argument that God should have made language and everything perfect, you’re just evading the fact that the bird/bat thing is an ignorant claim based off an imprecise translation.

          Listen here, there are tons of arguments showing the vast majority of the claims in the Bible are complete bunk. All I’m saying is that you don’t need to add bad arguments to them. It undermines the entire purpose. Even AIG has a list of ‘arguments creationists shouldn’t use’ because they are embarrassingly bad, so shouldn’t we do the same?

        • epeeist

          Listen here, there are tons of arguments showing the vast majority of the claims in the Bible are complete bunk.

          And this is a minor one, no more than that.

        • igotbanned999

          Exactly. So why are people being so resistant to being corrected about it? It’s not like admitting that you were wrong about this one thing will mean you have to renounce your atheism and shout hallelujah and praise Jesus.

          Atheists are supposed to pride themselves on changing their views when confronted with new evidence instead of backpeddling and making up excuses to defend them like theists, but you’re all doing the latter here.

        • epeeist

          Exactly. So why are people being so resistant to being corrected about it?

          Err, because it is wrong?

          I tend not to use the π=3 or “bats are birds” examples in arguments because they are so trivial, but that doesn’t stop the statements being false. Since you don’t seem to like my modus tollens then think of it in terms of a Bayesian analysis of the statement “the bible was written by a perfect an omniscient god”, these two examples are part of a plethora of others that reduce the posterior probability of the statement.

        • igotbanned999

          My point is that this error does not exist in the original Hebrew text, and when I pointed this out everyone attempted to save face by changing the argument to ‘well the Hebrew language should have been created to mirror modern scientific knowledge’ or ‘no translation should ever have had any inaccuracies’ instead of just being honest and saying ‘Oh, I didn’t know that. Thanks for informing me, I’ll make sure not to make the same mistake in the future’.

        • epeeist

          My point is that this error does not exist in the original Hebrew text

          If the passage in Leviticus is simply meant to divide the “clean” from the “unclean” animals then one could accept the passage. If the passage is meant as a description of the world then it is false.

        • igotbanned999

          It’s a dietary guideline. And in the original language it classifies the animals correctly.

        • Some insects can fly. Are they also “birds,” just like bats?

        • Greg G.

          Yes, they are. From Strongs:

          1. flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
            A. fowl, birds
            B: winged insects

        • Lark62

          Mammals are mammals. Mammals would be mammals even if humans had never existed to name them.

          Bats aren’t mammals because of “modern scientific classification.” Bats are mammals because they are mammals.

        • igotbanned999

          All classification systems are human defined. One could just as easily classify animals any other way, such as by size, aggressiveness, or, as the ancient Hebrews did, by method of locomotion. The concept of ‘mammals’ didn’t exist back then. The word translated as ‘bird’ didn’t mean what that word means in modern English.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Inerrancy again.

          If that’s the case, then ANY translation should magically be idiomatically correct.

        • Pofarmer

          There’s pretty much nothing you couldn’t rationalise this way.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Yeah, religion is like that…

        • igotbanned999

          There are a few sects like the KJVO who believe only one translation is accurate and even the original is wrong, but most of them agree that translation problems exist.

        • Lark62

          Sounds like someone slept through high school biology. The classifications of birds, mammals, reptiles, etc. is based on numerous anatomical characteristics is totally different then grouping them by size. Duh.

          Their / your deity created bats as mammals, then wrote an “inerrant” book that called them birds. You can’t have it both ways.

          Reality is that which remains true even if no one believes it.

        • igotbanned999

          Once again, you are totally missing the point. The meanings of words are defined by humans. Take the word ‘bug’, for instance. In English it can be used to refer to both insects and arachnids. That doesn’t mean they are the same. If they translated an English sentence that used the word ‘bug’ to refer to spiders into the equivalent of ‘insect’ in another language, the original English text wouldn’t be incorrect.

        • RichardSRussell

          Yes, everything you say is completely consistent with a book written by human beings. And obviously so, as you also point out. So I’m with you on this. Except for the part where you claim that “even most Biblical inerrantists” are willing to admit that there’s some fuzziness and corner-cutting in their favorite book. We have, right here on this forum, a primo example of one who bull-headedly refuses to acknowledge the Bible’s fallible human origins, even when they’re pointed out to him in excruciating detail. And he’s not alone; he just happens to be the one we’ve stumbled across. There are plenty more where he came from.

        • Michael Neville

          Even most Biblical inerrantists don’t claim that every figure and number is meant to be accurate down to the tiniest detail.

          Some of them do. Ken Ham claims that every single word in the Bible is literally true and error-free. He gets quite irate at other Christians who say some parts of the Bible are metaphorical and things like the Noachian flood didn’t happen. He does argue that 1 Kings 7:23 is correct, hand-waving at inner and outer lips of the bowl.

          Here’s the argument for inerrancy: [LINK]

          Premise A: Every utterance of God is perfect and thus free from error.

          Premise B: All the truth claims of the Bible writers are the utterances of God.

          Conclusion: All the truth claims of the Bible writers are free from error.

          Premise A is supported by the teaching that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and that he knows everything (1 John 3:20). God cannot say anything contrary to the way things really are. He is morally perfect and will not lead anyone astray, especially since he is omniscient. Bible writers declare that the words of God are pure (Psalm 12:6; Proverbs 30:5). Paul calls Scripture the “word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), and he says that the truth excludes the possibility of lying (Romans 9:1). There is nothing spoken by God that is contrary to what is true.

          Premise B is supported by 2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV), which says, “all Scripture is God-breathed” and other scriptures that refer to the words of Moses, the other prophets, and the apostles as actual words of God.

          That is the deductive argument for inerrancy. If Premise A and B are true, then the Conclusion (that all the truth claims of the Bible writers are free from error) must be true. If the Conclusion is true, then we must approach Scripture from the stance of faith, trusting that when properly interpreted no errors will be found in Scripture, no matter how small. Nothing will be stated as a fact that does not correspond to the way things really are.

          We should take the Biblical literalists at their word that they believe the Bible is error-free and then show them errors in the Bible.

        • igotbanned999

          A much easier way to do that is to ask them if they believe that Jesus is literally both a lion and a lamb.

        • ORigel

          Ken Ham doesn’t believe the Earth is flat, though, as the Bible hints.

        • Pofarmer

          And now there is a different universal classification. Just think of all the insights a tri omni God could have given them.

        • igotbanned999

          My point was that it was correct in the time and language it was written so saying it’s incorrect now is petty and naive.

        • Pofarmer

          Um no. It points out that God didn’t know any more than the people at the time period

        • igotbanned999

          They had one word that covered both bats and birds. They used that word correctly. Where is the problem?

        • Pofarmer

          You really are this dense, aren’t you? I’m not the only one trying to explain this.

        • igotbanned999

          The claim is that the original text makes an error by counting bats as birds. The fact is that that is not true due to translation issues. Pointing out anything else is a red herring.

        • Michael Neville

          Supposedly Yahweh supervised or at least influenced the writing of the Bible. An omniscient god would know that people like Richard and me would ping on π=3. So he should have told or hinted at the Biblical writers that the circumference should be “31 and a bit”.

        • igotbanned999

          Why are you assuming that bronze age tribesmen could build and measure a perfect circle?

        • Lark62

          All it takes to make a perfect circle is a stick and a piece of rope.

        • igotbanned999

          In the form of a bronze vat?

        • Lark62

          Why not? There are many ways to make a circular vat using ancient technology.

        • igotbanned999

          How about one that was just good enough to do the job it was designed for?

        • Joe

          All cultures were capable of that. What would make Christianity special?

        • igotbanned999

          Nothing. But that’s immaterial to the point.

        • epeeist

          The figure given in the Bible is obviously just a rough estimate

          And yet the Babylonians “rough estimate” on a tablet dated 1900-1680BCE was 3.125, while the Rhind papyrus (1650BCE) gives it as 3.1605. If mere people could get closer estimates than why should a god supervised holy book contain such a poor value?

        • Lark62

          Christians claim the deity 1. Created everything personally, species by species and 2. Wrote/dictated the bible and every word in it is true.

          Yet the deity forgot it created bats as mammals.

          “Bats are birds” matters because it is evidence that christian claims are full of shit.

        • igotbanned999

          Except, yet again, that’s only an issue in the English translation. Unless you’re dealing with one of those KJVO nuts who thinks the English version is the only true version, this objection is ignorant.

        • Lark62

          Didn’t your omniscient deity know the bibble would be translated? And why wasn’t it omniscient enough to make sure all translations of the bibble are correct?

          We are left with the fact that your imaginary friend is incompetent.

        • igotbanned999

          I don’t have an omniscient deity, sorry.

        • epeeist

          This is one of the arguments that makes us atheists look bad, along with others like the ‘bats aren’t birds’ thing.

          The problem being that Aristotle had already written the Parts of Animals, the Generation of Animals, the Parts of Animals and the History of Animals. While he gets a number of things wrong he gets far more right than the supposed god-inspired “holy book”. This being so, why should we cut the bible any slack?

        • igotbanned999

          Leviticus was written before Aristotle was born. That’s irrelevant though since you’re missing the point. The Hebrew word translated into English as ‘bird’ meant something more like ‘flying creature’, which includes bats. It’s a translation error more than anything.

        • epeeist

          Leviticus was written before Aristotle was born. That’s irrelevant though since you’re missing the point

          I accept the first sentence, though not the second.

          The Hebrew word translated into English as ‘bird’ meant something more like ‘flying creature’, which includes bats.

          So why didn’t the Hebrew god find the correct word to distinguish between the two types of flying creature if the bible was inspired or written by it? Now if it was simply the product of fallible human beings then there would be no problem

        • igotbanned999

          The ancient Israelites had no need to distinguish between them for the purposes of what they were writing.

        • Joe

          Why should anybody trust anything in the Bible, in that case?

        • igotbanned999

          They shouldn’t. But not every criticism of the Bible ever conceived is automatically correct.

        • Joe

          Who said that was the case?

        • igotbanned999

          You’re acting like it is by bending over backwards to defend the bat/bird thing as a legitimate criticism.

          Why is it so difficult to admit you’re wrong on that point?

        • Joe

          It is a legitimate criticism. I don’t know why you’re being so pedantic.

        • igotbanned999

          If the criticism is that the original texts classified bats as birds, then that is incorrect.

        • Joe

          Not quite. The full criticism is:

          The Bible classifies birds as bats. Therefore the Bible is NOT the work of an infallible god, but limited humans. If it’s the work of limited humans, it can be wrong in other areas. Therefore it should not be believed prima facie.

          Of course, that’s not a pithy argument so often the last part gets left unsaid.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible lists birds by species, then lumps all bats together as if they are a species of birds. But why are fruit bats unclean? They are made of fruit.

        • Joe

          cloven hoofed fruit?

        • (((Mikey goes to Hollywood)))

          They don’t chew their cud.

        • igotbanned999

          Except the fact of the matter is that it doesn’t classify bats as birds (you wrote it the other way around BTW)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If an ‘almighty’ ‘god’ is behind it, then YES, I expect it to be perfect.

          I mean, for fucking chrissakes (this topic bugs me), the fraction 22/7ths is more than close enough…WTF couldn’t they get it right?

        • igotbanned999

          It wasn’t an instruction manual to build the thing. Your complaint would only be relevant against extreme Biblical literalists.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Supposed to be ‘divinely inspired’.

          I have higher standards for supposed ‘gods’.

        • igotbanned999

          I suppose I don’t then, as including extraneous detail unimportant to the point of the story has never seemed to be a good thing from my perspective. Of course many Christians do the same thing, claiming little details in the Bible are super important.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          FYI, Saberhagen’s Berserker Man has a MacGuffin of a ring that *does* show pi equalling 3, but only for *it*.

          Supposed to mean the child found by it is *significant*, but the plot point never gets developed.

        • RichardSRussell

          I loved Saberhagen’s Berserker series! Hangs right in there with Zelazny’s Amber series.

        • Lark62

          “And they got their answers from eyewitnesses”

          Evidence, please.

        • Kendall Fields

          Luke 1:2

        • Lark62

          That is not evidence.

          Seriously? You think an unnamed author saying “I heard this from some realio trulio eyewitnesses that I won’t bother to name, trust me.” counts as evidence?

          Wow.

          Luke 1
          “1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,”

        • Kendall Fields

          Why does he need to name them? Do you think every writer names all of the people they interview for a biography?

        • Lark62

          Oh Puhleeze. Stop gaslighting.

          It’s not that the anonymous author did not name “every” source. He/she did not name any source.

          None. Nada. Zip.

          There is no reason to believe the author had ever met any eyewitness.

        • Kendall Fields

          And has every biographer in history name their source?

        • I certainly have high standards for the omniscient Creator of the Universe. Apparently you don’t, and any old book that supports your preconceptions is close enough.

        • TheNuszAbides

          any old book that supports your preconceptions

          i reckon the drooling bibliolaters like KF have it the other way ’round: they support the book’s preconceptions.

          (only in the loosest, cheerleady sense of “support”, of course)

        • Michael Neville

          I have a biography of Lord Exmouth (never mind who he is, it’s not important). The bibliography runs six pages for one guy born in 1757 and died in 1833. Looks like that biographer named a bunch of his sources.

        • Well, yeah, but Lord Exmouth was a real person who was important to history. Jesus and his supernatural claims aren’t important at all and so don’t deserve the care of the historian.

          Or so Kendall will, I’m sure, tell you.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Names are necessary because the ACTUAL record-keepers of the time, the Romans (no, really, they were anal-retentive, OCD, call it what you will, about keeping records) didn’t say SHIT about any of it.

          When those who LIVE to record events don’t say shit about your little party, odds on bet it *never* happened.

        • Nankay

          Yes! They do!

        • Kendall Fields

          No you do not.

        • Nankay

          That would make one crappy , untrustworthy biographer who doesn’t state his/her sources.

        • Kendall Fields

          And Gospel of Luke is not meant to a biography.

        • Tell me about it! Now you just need to convince your fellow religionists.

        • Greg G.

          Ancient historians identified their sources, whether the source was reliable, and why one was more reliable than another.

        • Can I put “This book was totally written by an eyewitness, I’m not kidding” at the front of every book, and that makes it accurate?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Funny how fiction books include exactly the opposite disclaimer to avoid getting sued?

        • Greg G.

          We can identify Luke’s primary sources. Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, the Septuagint, particularly Deuteronomy, and Josephus. None of those were eyewitnesses for what Luke wrote about.

        • Kendall Fields

          And not only that Luke 1:3

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          A book that has EVERY sign of being not just fiction, but BAD fiction, isn’t evidence.

          You’re assuming your conclusion, no logical fallacies, please…

        • se habla espol

          And they got their answers from eyewitnesses who generally do not have the same answer.

          So they didn’t get their answers from your gods, then, just from some unidentified, unverifiable, unreliable “eyewitnesses”.

        • God is quoted in the Bible. Some of the savage stuff God says would make a serial killer blush.

          And you worship this guy??

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So much for your *supernatural* ‘god’ that can deliver ‘truth through fallible human beings’.

          I mean, do you even fucking TRY to be consistent in your arguments and axioms?

        • Lark62

          Was Jesus crucified on Passover (per Matthew, Mark and Luke) or the day before Passover (according to John)? Pick only one, unless of course he was crucified twice. Oops.

        • Kendall Fields

          It is the same day.

        • Lark62

          On what planet is “The day before Passover” the same day as “The day of Passover”?

          You must be really desperate.

        • Kendall Fields

          No I am not desperate for I am pointing out the facts. Jesus died on Passover during the Day of Preparation which is a part of the Passover season as Passover coincided with the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

        • Lark62

          The day of preparation is not the day of.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes it is. It coincides with the Passover proper and the whole season is referred to as Passover.

        • ?? John says that Jesus died on the Day of Preparation, moron. That’s before the Passover meal. The synoptics say that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.

          Contradiction.

        • Lark62

          Well, he might’ve died on the day before the Passover meal, then come back to eat the Passover meal on Passover, then died again, then come back to life again.

          After all, with dog all things are possible.

          (Snark.)

        • You beat me to it!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          As usual, you’re spouting bullshit.

          Here’s a site with a pretty comprehensive collection of the contradictions of the text as printed

          http://bibviz.com/

          I don’t believe your blanket denial, so demonstrate how EACH ONE is a falsehood (in the context of a superstitious fiction, of course)

        • Zeta

          Kendall Fields: “I believe what is written in the Bible.

          In my previous interactions with Christian believers and apologists, I find that it is wise from the start to know what they really believe, at least in a brief form because there are all sorts of Christians believing in many different things. In view of this, would you mind briefly telling readers here the following?

          1. What kind of a Christian are you? Catholic, Protestant, etc?

          2. Is your god the Bible god exactly as depicted in your holy book?

          3. What are the attributes of the god you believe in? Omni-everything or some omni properties only?

          4. Is your holy book inerrant?

          5. Are you a YEC?

          6. Do you think that the theory of biological evolution is very well-established?

        • Kendall Fields

          Does it really matter? I am Christian plain and simple.

        • Zeta

          Of course, it does matter but it is your prerogative not to answer.

        • Kendall Fields

          And why does it matter?

        • Zeta

          To see the goalpost.
          “I am Christian plain and simple.” Really? There are so many types of Christians. For example, YECs argue differently from Old Earth Creationists. Bible inerrantists argue differently from those who don’t think the bible is error-free. Some Christians don’t think there was a global flood, etc.

        • Kendall Fields

          And people can call themselves a Christian but that doesn’t necessarily make them one.

        • Zeta

          You have just answered your own question: “And why does it matter?”

          “And people can call themselves a Christian but that doesn’t necessarily make them one.”

          What makes you a True Christian while others don’t qualify?

        • Kendall Fields

          Following God and believing Jesus is the son of God, turn away from sin and ask God to forgive you sincerely when you stumble.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Apparently Hitler believed both of those, right to taking cyanide.

          Try again.

        • Pofarmer

          That doesn’t even mean anything. Which I imagine is the point. Replace God and Jesus with Howard the Duck and it reads the same.

        • So who’s the judge? Is it you?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There are at least 44,000 flavors of xtian (has Baskin-Robbins beat by PLENTY)

          So yes, the minutiae of your superstition are relevant.

        • Kodie

          Definitely simple, for sure!

        • It’s not like this is hard to understand.

        • Doubting Thomas

          It’s hard to understand when your purpose is to not understand it. Motivated reasoning is a bitch.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not intellectually.

          I get the feeling that Kendall has a bad case of unacknowledged emotional terror, mostly due to not believing the stories but still having a pre-rational implanted fear of ‘consequences’.

        • Perhaps Kendall isn’t really that strong a Christian …

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      Maybe God shouldn’t have written such a terrible book that not even his followers can agree on how to follow His rules.

      • Kendall Fields

        And what is terrible about the Bible?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Like I said, even its fans can’t agree on what it means. It utterly fails at its purpose.

        • Kendall Fields

          And that falls on the people not God. And if you are a Christian regardless of denomination still believe Jesus Christ is the son of God who died for our sins. So the Bible doesn’t fail.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          No, it falls on God. He didn’t care enough to make his message clear (assuming you’re right and the Bible is his word).

          What do we need to do to be saved and get to heaven?
          Christians can’t even agree on this basic question. The Bible fails.

        • Kendall Fields

          You mean how Jesus said that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life? But you are going to totally say that God failed to have the message out despite that clear message. You are saved by faith as well as good works but we disagree on the importance of good works in salvation not because of God nor over what is written in scripture but because of ourselves.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Protestants would tell you that you’re wrong.. And they were willing to kill over it.
          And God never did a thing to stop it.

        • Kendall Fields

          And atheists have killed Christians to destroy their faith. Your point?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          That Christians can’t agree on what the Bible says and are confident enough in their beliefs to kill each other over those differences. And God looks down at it all and laughs.

        • Kendall Fields

          And why can we not agree? Because of our own sins. And how is God laughing at us? If anything he would be furious at people killing each other despite knowing the truth. So you aren’t proving your point here.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          These would be very easy things for God to clear up if he cared.

          If anything he would be furious at people killing each other despite knowing the truth.

          And that’s why he came down and cleared up the disagreements during the Reformation,.

          No, wait. He didn’t do that….

        • Kendall Fields

          More people died during the Reformation because of territorial reasons rather than faith with the reformation only occurring because Luther was against the corruption of the Catholic Church. Also if God didn’t care why did he leave his word to the world.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          If only God had had OTHER options to remove the corruption than unleashing war throughout Europe. Maybe he could have actually found one that would work, rather than trading one corrupt church for many corrupt churches.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how were the wars in Europe God’s fault? The Catholic Church reformed itself after Luther’s factions split off and those wars had more to do with territory rather than religious reasons especially since most of the original Protestant churches still have connections to the Catholic Church.

        • Damien Priestly

          -> “And how were the wars in Europe God’s fault?”

          Because God planned it that way! Obviously God would not make Protestantism an accident. John Calvin, didn’t burn libertines like Michael Servetus at the stake as part of some random free-will exercise. God was all in! Predestination doesn’t just have to be for souls.

          The Catholic Church was reformed during Luther’s time?…Sure, the Inquisition was raging at the time of the reformation. You actually believe this Christian BS, right?

        • Kendall Fields

          And you mention the Inquisition even though it died off during the reformation. You seem to be quite mistaken about predestination. God knows what will happen but you have the choice to follow him. Calvin’s ideology was wrong as God allows anyone who believes in him and repents to be saved.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong, par usual

          They just changed the name to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

          You might have heard of it. Benny the Rat headed it before he ascended to the Papal seat (before breaking his oath and retiring well short (unfortunately) of death).

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          How could the Inquisition die out? How did God ever allow it to exist in the first place. The first time a priest in the inquisition started to torture someone, God should have come down and stopped it.
          “You’re my priest. You follow me. What YOU do reflects on me! Stop it! This is not acceptable behavior for my religious leaders.”

        • Kendall Fields

          The Inquisition died out in 16th century and do you not think Europe suffered because of the Inquisition?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          The inquisition existed into the 19th century.

          do you not think Europe suffered because of the Inquisition?

          Yes, it did.
          So why didn’t God stop it?

        • Kendall Fields

          And God did stop it.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          If God had stopped it, we never would have heard about it, would we?
          No, he let it go on for centuries.

        • Kendall Fields

          Tell me why did God allow the Israelites to face hardship?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Answer, why didn’t God stop his church leaders from inflicting suffering on his children?

        • Kendall Fields

          Answer my question.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          No, you first. You dodge far too many questions because you don’t have the answers.

        • Kendall Fields

          And what questions have I dodged?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And what questions have I dodged?

          EVERY DAMNED ONE OF THEM!

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Answer the question.

        • Kendall Fields

          And the questions I have dodged are?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          I will take this as admission that you cannot answer the question.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          What question? Who? Where? Huh?

        • Kendall Fields

          And I asked you what questions have I dodged? You are defeating yourself it you can’t answer that.

        • Michael Neville

          Jack Baynes asked you: “Answer, why didn’t God stop his church leaders from inflicting suffering on his children?”

          And you replied: “Do you think he is real?”

          That is just one example of a question you haven’t answered. And if you think for a second that we haven’t noticed your refusal to answer any questions we ask you then you’re even more stupid than most Christian apologists who come to this blog.

        • Greg G.

          And I asked you what questions have I dodged?

          severalspeciesof asked, “Was Jesus’s death an atonement for sin?”

          You dodged answering the question by answering, “And who gave him up as an atonement?”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Kendall, dearie, around here, YOU don’t get to make demands, especially when you’re not cooperating at all.

          See below: https://ct.weirdnutdaily.com/ol/wn/sw/i52/5/8/20/wnd_7afeec0ea708a289d28ae30809f5afa4.jpg

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          This still remains as one of my favorite memes ever.

        • Kendall Fields

          Do you think he is real?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          No, but you do.
          Why do you think he put up with his priests torturing and killing people?

        • Kendall Fields

          And how can you ask me that question if you don’t think he is real?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In canon, dearie.

          YOUR KIND have to be consistent, like the rest of us, no matter how difficult that might be.

        • ORigel

          You think he’s real. It’s like us reading an alternative history and you saying, “No, the Nazis lost WWII!”

        • Kendall Fields

          And again you want to say he can’t do anything yet you say he doesn’t exist.

        • Superman can fly, and yet he doesn’t exist.

        • Greg G.

          He is illustrating the inconsistencies of your belief system.

        • Kodie

          If you have nothing to say, then you should probably get the fuck out now.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          I see that Kendall has the 5 Ds of dodgeball down pat:

          – Dodge
          – Duck
          – Dip
          – Dive and
          – Dodge!

          https://youtu.be/GQqkQKde_kU?t=2m6s

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          “Why do you think he put up with his priests torturing and killing people?”

          He’ll get back to you after he asks his pastor for the answer to that question.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In canon, ‘god’ is real.

          So YOU are required to answer for all the text in the book.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In canon, yahweh allowed the Israelites to suffer because he’s a dick.

        • Michael Neville

          The last execution of the Inquisition was in Spain in 1826. This was the execution by garroting of Cayetano Ripoll for purportedly teaching Deism. In Spain the practices of the Inquisition were finally outlawed in 1834. The Vatican Inquisition continued its practices until the breakup of the Papal States and unification of Italy in 1870. In 1908 the Inquisition became “The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office”, which in 1965 further changed to “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”. The Inquisition stopped torturing and executing people in the 19th Century but it exists to this day.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In canon, WHO ‘created’ the world and everything on it, including people?

          Your ‘god’, that’s who.

          It’s a fucked up technician who blames the handiwork for the technician’s faults.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Still your putative ‘god’s fault.

          If it hadn’t fucked up (in canon), then there wouldn’t be any conflict.

          I mean, it can’t even fucking design ANGELS that don’t fight or rebel (in canon).

        • severalspeciesof

          “Also if God didn’t care why did he leave his word to the world.”
          Hmmm… he left it well over 175,000 years after Homo sapiens came into existence. Lazy deity…

        • Kendall Fields

          And tell me how is he lazy? You say he is lazy but how do you know? Do you think you could do what God can?

        • We have countless examples where God could’ve stepped in (to educate us, to prevent harm) and yet he didn’t.

          It’s almost like he’s not even there.

        • severalspeciesof

          LOL… I guess you can’t tell a humorous quip from a serious one. The serious statement is the sentence preceding the humorous quip. I’ll put it another way:
          Why did god not share his word for the first 150,000 plus years of our existence?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          And he gave it to a handful of people in the backwaters of Rome, hoping that eventually it will spread to the rest of the world without being perverted.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Victim blaming.

          Per the ‘bible’ & yahweh: “I made you imperfect and now I’m going to *punish* you for the imperfections I *designed* into you! DANCE, MONKEY, DANCE!!”

          How do you NOT see how fucked up that is?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Evidence of that bullshit assertion, dammit!

        • ORigel

          Name an example of atheists killing Christians to destroy their faith.

          And if you name a valid example….your God didn’t do a thing to stop it.

        • Kendall Fields

          Under Communist regimes who have done it in very large numbers and still do it nowadays and also do not forget Adolf Hitler who was an atheist. You said God did nothing yet look at how the leaders of those empires fell dying by themselves in isolated places.

        • Stalin killed people, but what’s the atheism connection? If you’re not saying “Stalin killed people because of atheism” then you’re not saying anything interesting. And if you are saying that, then we need evidence.

          Stalin was both an atheist and a bad person. You’ve shown no causal connection.

        • ORigel

          The Communist regimes opposed religion because they wanted power, so they had to remove threats to the power. It was not to destroy faith; it was to retain power.

          Adolf Hitler was a Catholic. Who the Vatican captiulated to and Christians supported. There is no indication he was an atheist. And even if he was secretly an atheist, he got the German Christians and the Vatican on his side. It’s a lose-lose situation for you apologists who keep bringing this lie up.

        • Kendall Fields

          Nope if he was a Christian then why did he say Christianity is weak. It isn’t a lie just a fact you refuse to accept. Also the Communists did oppose religion to destroy faith not all about power.

        • Kendall Fields

          Oh and let us not forget that the Popes tried to save the Jews from Hitler. Besides most of the people in Germany who supported Hitler were not really Christians.

        • Oh and let us not forget that the reason Hitler’s ideas made sense within Germany was that anti-Semitism was already a widespread notion.

          Good ol’ Martin Luther was one source. You remember his book, On the Jews and Their Lies? An oldie but a goodie.

        • Zeta

          Why did your god choose to ignore the horrible fates and suffering of millions of Jews (his Chosen People) before they were murdered in the Holocaust?

        • Kendall Fields

          And why do you say God chose to ignore them?

        • Zeta

          Are you denying that millions of Jews (his Chosen People) died horrible deaths while your (and their) god watched?

        • Kendall Fields

          Did I deny the Holocaust happened?

        • Zeta

          Reading comprehension problem? I never say or even imply that you denied the Holocaust? What I was asking:
          Was your god simply watching when these Jews were being horribly murdered?

        • Kendall Fields

          The Nazis were stopped in the end.

        • Zeta

          This is an idiotic reply. Who stopped the Nazis? Your god? Your all-loving god just callously watched on the sideline when millions of Jews and other victims were massacred. You are hopelessly delusional in your belief. Christianity has done a lot of damage to your mind. Time to give up such nonsense. It is not too late.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes and Atheists have killed a whole bunch of people yet you still stay with them. Which makes your sanity more questionable than mine.

        • epeeist

          Yes and Atheists have killed a whole bunch of people yet you still stay with them

          OK, so what you are essentially coming out with is “Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people; Stalin was an atheist; Therefore Stalin had people killed in the cause of atheism”. Let’s change a couple of things – “Harry Truman was responsible for the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Harry Truman was a Christian; Therefore Harry Truman had these people killed in the cause of Christianity”.

        • Kendall Fields

          And it is not too late for you to join God.

        • Zeta

          “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
          ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

        • Kendall Fields

          And Richard Dawkins can say anything about God but that doesn’t mean it is true.

        • Kendall Fields

          And it gets pathetic when you quote Richard Dawkins because the man is just as pathetic as King Ahab.

        • Evidence?

        • Kendall Fields

          Also God did stop the Nazis. And you say God doesn’t love people just because they died? How pathetic of you.

        • Zeta

          “God did stop the Nazis.” Evidence please.
          “you say God doesn’t love people just because they died? ” Where did I say that? Don’t put words into my mouth. Your skull is really thick with virtually nothing inside. These victims died horrible deaths. Your all-knowing and all-loving god watched them being tortured, massacred and did nothing. You are a pathetic and extremely callous person just like your god. Are you a human with feelings and empathy?

        • Kendall Fields

          Yet most of the Nazi leaders still faced punishment. Some may have gotten away but they were distrusted and viewed negatively.

        • And the evidence of your claim would be equally compelling whether God existed or not. You’ve got claims but no evidence.

          And BTW, are you replying to my comments? Doesn’t seem like it. Let me know if they’re too hard and I’ll ignore you.

        • Greg G.

          Didn’t Frank stop replying to you before he was chosen to leave?

          Kendall doesn’t reply to Ignorant Amos, Kodie, Michael Neville, nor me, and Frank said he was blocking us all before he was invited to leave.

        • I don’t know that I’ve seen this problem. Someone spews scalding diarrhea through comments (I have a bonnacon in mind) but ignores the people who respond. That’s approaching a banning offense.

          This isn’t supposed to be a monologue–that’s why I allow comments.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t think it is a mere coincidence that the commenters being ignored from the beginning are those who Frank began to ignore before he disappeared. The arguments are the same fallacies and diarrhea.

          I had to look up “bonnacon”. I couldn’t get the Wikipedia page to come up. Must be too many people looking it up and they ran out of copies. But the term is appropriate in this case.

        • I had to look up “bonnacon”. I couldn’t get the Wikipedia page to come up.

          I’m not surprised.

          No one should be ignorant of the bonnacon. Here’s my post that mentioned it:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/11/when-christianity-was-in-charge-this-is-what-we-got/

        • Greg G.

          The only defense would be to outrun it.

          Do Blemmye women say, “Hey, my eyes are down here.”

        • Kodie

          That’s why I don’t like Luke either. He picks a couple people to talk to and the rest are ignored, while he takes over entire thread comments sections.

        • Pofarmer

          The reason I don’t like Luke is because his arguments are generally dishonest and basically amount to gas lighting and making his sources say things they don’t say..

        • Kodie

          There’s that too, but what Christian isn’t. I understand they get dogpiled too, but when they block everyone to pick their easiest conversations, it’s really not cool.

        • If a miracle happens and Luke and Kendall come back reformed, then they can stay. I’m pessimistic.

        • epeeist

          Also God did stop the Nazis

          I thought that the Soviet army had quite a lot to do with that.

        • Well, yeah. God = Stalin.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And Alan Turing…his work gave the Russians a heads up on what the Nazi’s plans were on the Eastern Front and the 1943 counter attack at Kursk.

          The message concerns plans for a major German offensive in the Kursk area codenamed ‘Zitadelle’. Operation Zitadelle was Hitler’s attempt to regain the initiative on the Eastern Front following the Russian victory at Stalingrad in February 1943. Zitadelle would turn out to be one of the crucial battles of the war. Von Weichs’ message gives a detailed appreciation of Russian strengths and weaknesses in the Kursk area. His appreciation reveals a considerable amount about the intentions of the German Army. British analysts deduced from the decrypt that Zitadelle would consist of a pincer attack on the north and south flanks (‘corner-pillars’) of a bulge in the Russian defensive line at Kursk (a line which stretched from the Gulf of Finland in the north to the Black Sea in the south).18 The attacking German forces would then attempt to encircle the Russian troops situated within the bulge.

          Highly important messages such as this were conveyed directly to Churchill, usually with a covering note by ‘C’, Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service.19 On 30 April an intelligence report based on the content of the message, but revealing nothing about its origin, was sent to Churchill’s ally, Stalin.20 (Ironically, however, Stalin had a spy inside Bletchley Park: John Cairncross was sending raw Tunny decrypts directly to Moscow by clandestine means.21)

          The Germans finally launched operation Zitadelle on 4 July 1943.22 Naturally the German offensive came as no surprise to the Russians—who, with over two months warning of the pincer attack, had amassed formidable defences. The Germans threw practically every panzer division on the Russian front into Zitadelle,23 but to no avail, and on 13 July Hitler called off the attack.24 A few days later Stalin announced in public that Hitler’s plan for a summer offensive against the Soviet Union had been ‘completely frustrated’.25 Zitadelle—the Battle of Kursk—was a decisive turning point on the Eastern front. The counter attack launched by the Russians during Zitadelle developed into an advance which moved steadily westwards, ultimately reaching Berlin in April 1945.

          http://www.colossus-computer.com/colossus1.html

        • BlackMamba44

          God did stop the Nazis

          After they killed 11 million people. Way to go Yahweh…

        • Pofarmer

          50 million people died in WWII on all sides. But, sure, God stopped the Nazis.

          Holy fuck.

          Even if this god were real, he wouldn’t deserve worship. He’d deserve to be hunted down.

        • Paul B. Lot
        • Kendall Fields

          The concept is foolish and video itself is wrong.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Weird, you managed to watch an 1.5hr long movie in under an hour? 😛

          PS. The film is based on a real event which took place in a concentration camp:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_on_Trial

        • Kendall Fields

          Yeah and didn’t need to watch it as I already heard about it. It is still stupid.

        • Greg G.

          Maybe he saw it when he was Frank.

        • Well, yeah, but that question is hard to answer. Who wants to answer an embarrassing question?

        • Greg G.

          I hear bagpipes but I can’t tell if they are true bagpipes.

        • TheNuszAbides

          that’s how you know it’s working.

        • epeeist

          Oh and let us not forget that the Popes tried to save the Jews from Hitler

          And of course Hitler was excommunicated by the Catholic church. Oh wait, he wasn’t. In fact Cardinal Bertram wanted to arrange a requiem mass for him.

        • Pofarmer

          Besides most of the people in Germany who supported Hitler were not really Christians

          Of course not.

          https://gonnagan.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/facepalm.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh and let us not forget that the Popes tried to save the Jews from Hitler.

          Tosh…not nearly enough…read Hitler’s Pope.

          Besides most of the people in Germany who supported Hitler were not really Christians.

          Ah, the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

          The Vatican’s instructions to the Catholic Centre Party to not oppose Hitler was central to his gaining power.

          Before Pius XI decided to hitch the Catholic Church’s fortunes to Hitler, he supported the rise of other authoritarian Catholic politicians in Germany. These actions set the conditions that eventually allowed Pius XI to help propel Adolf Hitler to dictatorial control of Germany. Pius XI’s representative in Germany (Papal Nuncio) all through the period being discussed was Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who would later become Pius XII.

          http://www.iiipublishing.com/religion/catholic/popes/pius_xi_hitler.html

          http://thaumaturgical.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/nazis-atheism.jpg

          https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/72/85/1524528994-adolf_hitler_on_christianity_by_fiskefyren-d6a46xp.jpg

          https://i1.wp.com/i43.photobucket.com/albums/e372/tlthe5th/02-14-200702_09_00PM.jpg

        • LTS
        • Ignorant Amos

          There is evidence that the Nazi’s actively persecuted atheists.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#Nazi_Germany

        • ORigel

          If God cared, you would have never heard about the horrors of Communist regimes because there wouldn’t have been a single person murdered or sent to gulags by them.

        • Kendall Fields

          So you say God doesn’t care because people died. Yet nearly all Communist regimes have died and the remaining ones will potentially destroy themselves. So to say God didn’t care is to ignore what happen in history.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “So you say God doesn’t care because people died. ”

          Yep.

        • Your position is unfalsifiable, isn’t it? Whether there’s bad in the world or not, it’s all part of God’s Plan, so you win regardless. Sweet!

        • Michael Neville

          Adolph Hitler was a Catholic. Learn some history before you say things that we know are wrong. You’ll look slightly less like an ignorant idiot that way.

        • Ignorant Amos

          More of your ignorant nonsense.

          Stalin did what was best for Stalin…and when that included supporting the religious, that’s what he did.

          But during World War II, Stalin eased up considerably on religion. He allowed for tens of thousands of Russian Orthodox churches to reopen, adopted an official policy of tolerance toward Muslims,6 and re-established the hierarchy of leadership in the Russian Orthodox Church.7 There were even rumors that Stalin had reconsidered his own personal relationship to religion when he took a “mysterious retreat” in 1941.8

          https://hollowverse.com/Joseph_Stalin

          There is no doubt that Stalin persecuted the religious, as he persecuted any group or individual he deemed a threat, but it was less about them being religious and more about their organised threat to his position. He offed just as many fellow communists and atheists for that same reason.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Doesn’t matter.

          yahweh fucked up, blamed the victim, and then (effectively) burned its own finger & miraculously healed itself to give itself permission to be nice again?

          Your supposed ‘god’ is as neurotic as FUCK!

        • Lark62

          Whatvdo we need to be saved? Easy

          For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever opposes gay marriage shall not perish but have everlasting life.

          Isn’t that how it goes?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          LOL

        • Otto

          Jesus Christ…was another human sacrifice. I really don’t see the difference between the sacrifice of Jesus (the sacrifice had to be absolutely ‘pure’ to appease God) and throwing a virgin (pure) female in a volcano to appease the Volcano god.

        • Kendall Fields

          Because one was a selfless sacrifice to save others whose sins would damn them and the other is people performing an action that was for the heck of it.

        • Otto

          No, the person being sacrificed to the volcano was doing it for other people. Hers is actually a more impressive action because it was permanent.

        • Kendall Fields

          No it wasn’t it was done for a select few rather than for truly everyone. And even then hers was human sacrifice while Jesus’s death was not.

        • Otto

          The correlation is rather apt…I am not surprised you find it off putting, I would have too when I was still a Christian.

        • Kendall Fields

          Again you are comparing a a mouse and a whale. Two entirely different things. You said you were a “Christian” but if you truly were a Christian you would still believe.

        • Otto

          Both were pure sacrifices…both were human sacrifices….both were to appease a god. Sorry you have to rationalize it in your head…but the comparison is spot on.

        • Kendall Fields

          Again a virgin is different from being pure, it was not appease to God but to save others from their sins and it was not a human sacrifice. I pity you for thinking they are the same.

        • Otto

          So are you saying Jesus was not fully human? I mean it is pretty orthodox belief that Jesus was both fully human and fully God, therefore it is a human sacrifice.

        • Kendall Fields

          No it isn’t. Did other people sacrifice him? No. Was it done to appease God? No.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          I guess Paul’s letter to the Hebrews was Heretical.

          For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

          Hebrews 2:17-18

        • Kendall Fields

          For one that isn’t Paul’s letter. Secondly the verses clearly state this was done to help the people not to appease God.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Not to help them, to atone for their sins.

          But what was pointing out was you are wrong that it’s not a standard Christian teaching that Jesus was fully human.

        • Kendall Fields

          Jesus was not fully human as he was also God. And if helping them atone for their sins is not helping then what is helping?

        • Lark62

          Are you saying the bible is incorrect when it said Jesus was fully human?

          Oops.

        • Kendall Fields

          No I am not. Jesus is human but is he also not human.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Self-contradiction.

          Resolve it or your position is immediately forfeit.

        • (((Mikey goes to Hollywood)))

          Jesus was more human than human, as foretold by St. Zombie in his Epistle to the Astro Creeps.

        • Otto

          Well…it was his own plan to sacrifice himself. And if it wasn’t to appease God what was the point?

        • Kendall Fields

          The point was to save others. I would have figure you leaned that in “Christian” school.

        • Otto

          But that doesn’t answer how it saves others? By what mechanism does the death of a person ‘save’ others?

        • (((Mikey goes to Hollywood)))

          Blood Magick.

        • Otto

          I couldn’t quite get her there…but I tried…;)

        • (((Mikey goes to Hollywood)))

          It’s only 1/2 of my favorite Red Hot Chili Peppers album!
          Everybody should know that :p

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s not a reason, it’s an EXCUSE, and a piss-poor excuse at that.

        • severalspeciesof

          “The point was to save others.”
          By appeasing god.
          Isn’t god the final arbitor according to Christian theology?

        • Kendall Fields

          God is the final judge. Your point?

        • severalspeciesof

          My point is the sentence just before the one you quoted.

        • Kendall Fields

          Not really. God is only appeased when you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and repent your sins.

        • Read the parable of the sheep and the goats. You are judged based on your works.

          https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+25&version=NIV

        • severalspeciesof

          Yet just a day ago you said this: “Was it done to appease God? No”
          So what does one accept when one accepts Jesus as Lord and repenting of your sins? You accept first that he was a sacrifice. Sacrifices are appeasements to god. Period.

        • Kendall Fields

          Nope he was not a sacrifice to God.

        • severalspeciesof

          Romans 3:25
          “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding
          of his blood–to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his
          righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed
          beforehand unpunished.”
          Atonement: “reparation or expiation for sin”. Animal sacrifices to god were also acts of atonement. No matter the semantics, Jesus is a sacrifice to god, and according to the bible, apparently the last and ultimate/perfect one. Belief and acceptance of that idea will save you according to the generally held Christian theology.

        • Kendall Fields

          Even the devil can quote scripture. Your point?

        • Michael Neville

          It isn’t the devil (another figment of your imagination) but severalspeciesof who’s quoting YOUR book to you to show that you’re wrong according to YOUR book.

        • severalspeciesof

          Michael, maybe I am the devil… but I’ve been called worse. 😉

        • severalspeciesof

          And the devil can still be right. The snake/serpent in the Genesis story told the truth. Even when the devil tempted Jesus, he was not wrong in what he said. Where, in what I said, is wrong then?

        • Kendall Fields

          And still you don’t understand. The devil was wrong in all of what he said. You say Jesus was a sacrifice to God and he wasn’t.

        • severalspeciesof

          Answer yes or no: Was Jesus’s death an atonement for sin?

        • Kendall Fields

          And who gave him up as an atonement?

        • severalspeciesof

          Why won’t you answer?

        • severalspeciesof

          I’ll be nice here and answer directly, unlike what you have done. God gave him up as an atonement. See once again Romans 3:25 “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement…” So please be courteous and do like wise: Answer yes or no: Was Jesus’s death an atonement for sin?

        • Greg G.

          That isn’t part of the question. It’s a yes or no question.

        • ORigel

          Then what was he a sacrifice to? Judas?

        • Kendall Fields

          He was not a sacrifice to God.

        • ORigel

          He was a sacrifice of God, to God. All because he couldn’t forgive us for our sins of our ancestors eating forbidden fruit. If you stole from the cookie jar, would I have the right to punish your grandchild for it with fire?

        • Kendall Fields

          Again you don’t understand and refuse to listen.

        • ORigel

          Then tell me what Jesus’s death was for.

        • Kodie

          You’re not that compelling to listen to. You’re just about the stupidest CHRISTIAN who ever came here. What do you think you have to say that hasn’t already been said much smarter?

        • Greg G.

          You’re just about the stupidest CHRISTIAN who ever came here.

          Even Norm?

        • Kodie

          I have never seen anything like it except Frank.

        • Greg G.

          I responded to Kendall several times last night and today but he hasn’t responded to me, though he has responded many times to others. I seem to recall that Frank stopped responding to me, now that you mention his name.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re right. Kendall has never responded to me either. As I recall, Frank blocked me.

        • Kodie

          Hasn’t responded to me either.

        • Greg G.

          You have my sympathy. I know how bad you must feel.

        • Greg G.

          If the serpent was Satan in the Garden of Eden, then God owes serpents an apology.

        • Kendall Fields

          Nor was he a human sacrifice in general.

        • Kodie

          Then why did Jesus have to die? You could accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and repent your sins if he’s alive.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So, in canon, your Jebus nailed himself to a cross?

          Not how the fable reads.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          That would be a miracle… I could see how maybe he could nail one wrist to the cross… but how did he nail the other wrist to it?

        • Lark62

          In other words, assisted suicide. But that’s a sin. So Jeebus Crackers couldn’t have been without sin. So his assisted suicide was pointless.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Nankay

          Then to whom was this sacrifice made?

        • Kendall Fields

          So you are going to repeat the same thing others have said?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “So you are going to repeat the same thing others have said?”

          Nankay asked a *question*…why are you afraid to answer it?

        • Kodie

          You’re in way too deep over your head.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Kendall seems to believe that *intentions* matter.

          I wonder what road Kendall would say was paved with good intentions?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope. Rationality has a hard effect on superstitious belief.

          One *can* be fervent, realize reality, and only look back in shame at having been fooled for so long.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          I’ve heard Christians say that Jesus was fully man (as well as fully God). So his sacrifice WAS human sacrifice. (and it’s NOT for truly everyone, it’s only for people who have heard about Jesus, accept him as savior and possibly other requirements).

          The fact that Christians cannot agree on those other requirements shows that the Bible is a piss-poor rulebook. If you want to argue that Jesus WASN’T fully man, that’s again evidence that the Bible is piss-poor writing since other Christians who read the same book as you disagree.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In canon, either Jebus died, and he was a human sacrifice, or he didn’t die, which would be the only way to NOT be a human sacrifice.

          In canon, he came back a day and a half later. Thus, per you, he DIDN’T die and you’re condemned to hell. Sucks, don’t it?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          sick burn…too soon?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          God COULD have just forgiven those sins. But no, SOMEBODY had to die.

        • Kendall Fields

          And it was sad Jesus died for our sins but he did it to save us all while you guys continue to reject him. I pray for you lost soul for we all need God in our lives.

        • Jesus died for my sins? Tell him I said thanks next time you talk to him.

          Sorry–being out of action for a day and a half isn’t that big a deal.

        • Michael Neville

          Jesus didn’t die for our sins. He had a lousy day and then, day and a half later, he’s good to go again. What’s more, being a god, he knew he wasn’t going to stay dead. That’s part of the boilerplate god contract, no permanent dying. So what’s the big sacrifice? When I die I’ll stay dead, just like you will and the rest of life as we know it.

          Why are you telling us you’ll pray for us? Do you think we care about you muttering at the ceiling? Or are you just being a jerk: “I’ll pray for you whether you want it or not.”?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Agreed. I’ve had bouts of food poisoning that took longer to clear up, and have, once, ended up on IV fluids or I wouldn’t just have WANTED to die from the pain.

        • Kodie

          I have to say praying for us would be more productive than continuing to type out all your idiotic shit on the internet. I mean, go, be still, be quiet, set aside a long vacation, and pray for each one of us inside your house. I think that’s a fantastic idea.

        • rubellapox2

          Lol..

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          WHY was a ‘selfless sacrifice’ needed?

          Because the whole yahweh complex was too stubborn, childish, and impotent TO ADMIT IT WAS AT FAULT and fix the problem it created *itself*, without condemning the creation for how it was created (this is all ‘in-universe’ of xtian idiocy, not that I believe a word of it)

        • Kendall Fields

          Also another thing is being a virgin does not mean you are pure. People may say it is but it really isn’t. And you can’t even call it a human sacrifice with Jesus for it was not a sacrifice to God.

        • Otto

          It sure was a sacrifice to God, who else was it aimed at? It was so God could forgive the sins of mankind.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          But ONLY the mankind that had heard of Jesus, accepted him as savior, and possibly done the right amount and kind of good deeds.

        • Otto

          Very true…Kendall claims to me Jesus sacrifice was for everyone…but it is not…there are conditions that have to be met.

        • Kendall Fields

          Sure it was. Whatever you say to fulfill your lies.

        • Otto

          I didn’t pull this out of thin air Kendall…I was educated in a Christian school, I know damn well what Christians teach about their religion. You just have not heard it put so bluntly and it offends your sensibilities.

        • Kendall Fields

          Oh you don’t offend me but being raised in a Christian school and actually being one are different.

        • Otto

          That is beside the point…Christians absolutely teach Jesus was a human sacrifice and the sacrifice was to allow God to let us into heaven, it was done to appease him.

        • Kendall Fields

          No that is not beside the point. You refused God and compare Jesus’s sacrifice to a burning where the girl was not given a choice. And it was not done to appease God but to give others a chance.

        • Otto

          A chance of what? And how does killing someone give anybody a chance?

        • Kendall Fields

          You supposedly know scripture so why should I tell you. You are a big kid figure it out.

        • Otto

          I did figure it out…I decided I didn’t want to be a part of a human sacrifice religion and I left.

        • Kendall Fields

          Sure you did but it becomes pitiful with all the lies you have been saying. I pray for you lost soul.

        • Otto

          I haven’t said one lie….why do you have to pray for my soul? Is God going to do something to me? Why? Because he was not appeased?

        • Kendall Fields

          You have said multiple lies. And I pray for you because you became lost on the path of sin. And God can show you the way to him. God is not appeased when you reject him but even when you forsake him he will not forsake you.

        • Otto

          Sounds like a threat.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how is it a threat?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Because you are no doubt begging your ‘god’ to make the rest of us in to Jeebus zombies again, against our own *free will* (funny how that’s SO important when you want to *condemn* us)

          If YOUR KIND had a drug that could roofie us back into the mental prison of religion, admit it, you’d tie us down and force it down our unwilling throats.

          And THEN you wonder why we resist YOUR KIND.

        • Kodie

          I think Kendall better go pray. It’s not going to matter. Begging a fictional character to turn us into Christians won’t matter. I just want this fuckhead to get the fuck out with this nonsense. This person is useless and might as well go somewhere they can’t do any more bothering me. Bother god, he’s always listening to whatever you want to talk about! Kendall, go talk to Jesus, all day. That’s exactly what I want Kendall to do.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          From your keyboard to Kendall’s eyes

          😉

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You have yet to DEMONSTRATE even one lie on anybody else’s part, while spouting the *biggest* lie of them all, that your ‘god’ even exists.

          Quit with the blanket denial assertions and engage if you want to make your case, or quit wasting our time and polluting this discussion thread.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          What lies?

          You’re throwing around unsupported assertions like mad, and threatening us with tattling to your imaginary friend.

          How is that rational, mature, or adult IN ANY WAY?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Typical loser whine, “I can’t support my argument, SO YOU HAVE TO PROVE MY CASE FOR ME!”

          Grow up.

        • Lark62

          Are you aware that pretty much everyone here has “figured it out”?

          Your genocidal, blood thirsty deity is make believe.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how is god bloodthirsty and make believe? If not for God, this world would not exist. Sorry to disappoint you but God is real.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Bloodthirsty IN CANON.

          In reality, either nonexistent or irrelevant.

        • God is real? I’d like to see evidence or arguments. You’ve provided none.

        • Michael Neville

          If not for God, this world would not exist.

          Evidence required.

          God is real.

          Evidence required.

          If you can’t provide evidence for these assertions then why should we believe anything else you say about the figment of your imagination you worship?

        • So Otto refuses God. So what? You insult Allah every day you don’t bend the knee to him.

          But that’s OK. You’ll have a long time to repent in Muslim hell.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          How can I refuse something I don’t believe exists?

          I mean, c’mon, SHOW me the supernatural before you give me guff for not believing in it. DO YOUR DAMN HOMEWORK!

        • And we return to Kendall, the True Christian with the gift of telling who is a fellow True Christian.

          Must be cool being so smart.

        • Michael Neville

          Do I hear the sound of bagpipes in the background? Why is No True Scotsman one of the favorite fallacies of Christians?

        • Lark62

          The fine Kendall is trying to fill out his/her “Logical Fallacy Bingo Card.” Apparently he/she missed the instructions that you’re supposed to identify other people using the fallacy, not make them all yourself.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Dammit! So that’s why I keep losing that game!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Lots of fun movie clips today:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU

        • Michael Neville

          Perhaps Kendal is a believer in the old adage: If you want something done right then do it yourself.

        • As Paul says, “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

          Looks like you’ll be sharing heaven with us baby eaters.

          Dang. All that sanctimony for nothing!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In canon, WHO was placated by Jebus’ death?

          Think HARD about it.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Why do you think Jesus is called the “Lamb of God”?
          Because He his death was a sacrifice, like a lamb.

        • Kendall Fields

          You do realize the meaning behind the title?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Yes. Jesus served as a sacrifice for our sins.
          That’s what I just said.

        • Kendall Fields

          And who sacrificed Jesus?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          He did.

        • Kendall Fields

          And for what reason?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Because God needed a sacrifice before he could forgive us.
          You’re the Christian, you should know this .

        • Kendall Fields

          Nope. You don’t understand it because you aren’t a Christian. God didn’t not need it however humanity needed it.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          If God didn’t have himself killed, would he be able to forgive our sins?

        • Kendall Fields

          Jesus chose to sacrifice himself to redeem people of their sins.

        • Lark62

          What sacrifice? Jesus had a lousy weekend for our “sins.”

          Whoop-di-doo.

          Humans, including christians, have for millenia inflicted tortures on others humans far worse than anything this god-man supposedly suffered.

        • Kendall Fields

          You call death by crucifixion a “lousy weekend”? I pray for you lost child.

        • Lark62

          Since he rose from the dead after a day and a half, that hardly counts as dying.

          POWs in Vietnam, victims of the Spanish Inquisition, victims of Nazi medical experiments, victims of Vlad the impaler, etc. etc. all endured tortures that lasted months or years, longer and more severe than anything Jesus endured on just one day. And if they died, it was for keeps.

          Your deity is actually fairly pathetic.

          Also, when you tell someone you are praying for them, you are just admitting that prayer is so impotent that the only way they know they’re being prayed for is if you tell them.

        • Kendall Fields

          Crucifixion is not a good way to die. And even then those guys were tortured not killed because that was the point. They tortured people to get information out of them or to get some enjoyment out of it. And you saying that Jesus was pathetic because he was executed shows how lost and foolish you are. And I mean it when I pray for you. And being dead for a day and a half is being dead.

        • Lark62

          So? There are lots of bad ways to die. Torture is torture.

          There is nothing that sets your deity apart.

        • Kendall Fields

          And you brought up instances of torture rather than death especially when you don’t focus on why Jesus let himself get captured and sent to death.

        • Lark62

          I didn’t focus on “why” Jesus sacrificed himself to himself. That’s because blood sacrifice for any reason is pathetically stoooopid. Sure it made sense to primitive societies, but that was then, this is now.

          Kill a virgin so that the deity sends rain.
          Kill several thousand war captives so the sun will win its battle and keep rising.
          Kill some children because the rain god needs the tears of children.
          Kill a sheep because you accidentally touched something “unclean.”
          Kill a goat because you sinned.
          Kill some Jews to end the black plague.
          Kill some concubines and household servants to aid a powerful leader in the afterlife.

          Blood sacrifice is always dumb. Always.

          You myth is dumb. Your god impregnates a virgin who gives birth to god, who then sacrifices himself to himself and dies for a day and a half so that the hebrews can get their sins forgiven without killing sheep.

          Nonsense

        • Kendall Fields

          If it is nonsense then why do you still talk about it? And nowadays people are sinning so much compared to even in ancient times that the end days are coming soon.

        • Lark62

          Evidence please.

          People are sinning more now than when the Conquistadors murdered or enslaved pretty much the entire population on two continents?

          More sinful than when millions of African Americans were taken as slaves to be worked to death? In some parts of the “New World,” due to malnutrition and overwork slaves had an expected life span of under 3 years. The owners found it easier to let them die and just buy more.

          Yeah, in comparison to that, I can see how your deity would think gays getting married to people they love is the worst thing evahr.

          You are disgusting. Really.

        • Kendall Fields

          Most of the people in the Americas died from disease not because of the Spanish. Also there are more slaves nowadays than with the African Slave trade no matter how bad it was. And homosexuality is wrong just like slavery and other abominations. And you call me disgusting because I am speaking the truth. How lost you are dear child. I will pray for you.

        • “Most of the people in the Americas died from disease not because of the Spanish.”

          No, most of the people in America died from the diseases of the Spanish.

        • Kevin K

          Many of them deliberately introduced … smallpox-infected blankets and such.

        • there are more slaves nowadays than with the African Slave trade no matter how bad it was.

          There are fewer slaves now as a percentage, no thanks to God.

          Slavery as documented in the Bible (and approved by God) is the same as we had here in America–indentured servitude for people like us and slavery for life for Others.

          And homosexuality is wrong

          Cuz … it’s yucky? Or is there an actual reason?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Guess who BROUGHT the disease, missy?

          And violating Matt 6:5-6 again, I see.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          We talk about it because YOUR KIND try to force it into secular legislation rather than just living by your own rules.

          It’s not our belief or our problem, and you’re being antisocial by trying to force your superstitious idiocy on us.

        • Zeta

          Kendall Fields: “… the end days are coming soon.

          It is well-known that Jesus prophesized in Matthew 16:28: “Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

          Your god Jesus has not come back after 2000 years as he promised. Does it mean that some of those “standing here” has not tasted death until today? The better explanation is that Jesus is a false prophet, or bible writers just put words into the mouth of an invented god.

        • Kendall Fields

          Jesus said no one knows when those days will come except the Father. It could be today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks and on and on until those days occur. And anyone can quote scripture yet not know what it says especially when you grab one verse from the Bible.

        • Zeta

          Typical apologetical weaseling. Quoting another verse from an error-ridden and contradiction-laden holy book only shows the delusional state of your mind.

          The life spans of his disciples (“some standing here”) are a measure of the time Jesus is supposed to come back. Are you denying it? Are any of the disciples still alive today? Unfortunately for your argument, Matthew 16:28 is only one of many verses that reveal false prophecies about this so-called Second Coming.

          Matthew 10:23: “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

          How many cities were there in ancient Israel (a small country) for the disciples to cover? They have not finished preaching in little Israel after 2000 years?

          There are more such nonsense but I won’t bore knowledgeable readers here with more such quotes unless challenged.

        • Kendall Fields

          Even the devil can quote scripture to suit his purposes just like you.

        • Zeta

          Unable to rebut my points and resort to inane comments? Your are showing your true colors. Those quotes are directly from your ancient holy book and their meanings are crystal clear. You are a typical apologetic weasel.

        • Kendall Fields

          And you have been unable to prove your point at all.

        • Zeta

          I have not been able to prove my point? Hahaha! You are unable to rebut my points so you resort to inane comments.

          If your reading comprehension is so poor, I am repeating my points once again and see whether they can get through your thick skull. Jesus was a false prophet because he predicted, clearly stated in your very own ancient book, that he would be coming back very soon,

          1. within the lifetime of the disciples who were standing there listening to him
          2. before his disciples could finish their preaching in little Israel.

          Do I need to reiterate that these predictions fail even after 2000 years? If you have contrary evidences, show them for all to see. If you can’t, just admit it and then shut up as far as this issue is concerned.

        • Kendall Fields

          And I have refuted your points. Especially when you only grab a few verses and say he was false prophet.

        • Kodie

          Refute means prove someone wrong, not stomp your foot like a crybaby.

        • (((Mikey goes to Hollywood)))

          The only thing sadder than an adult with an imaginary friend is an adult with an imaginary enemy.

        • ORigel

          But Jesus said it would happen in the lifetime of some of his followers. Which constrains it to a date in the first century.

        • Kendall Fields

          You seem to be mistaken by what he said. When he means in a generation, he means a long time.

        • Michael Neville

          How do you know this? Even in 1st Century Galilee the word “generation” meant about 25 years, not a couple thousand.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          So when he said “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” you think he meant.
          “These things won’t happen for a long time”?

          Are you serious?

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes.

        • Greg G.

          When he says those standing here, he means people who aren’t born yet, too, right?

        • Michael Neville

          And nowadays people are sinning so much compared to even in ancient times

          What’s your evidence to support this claim?

        • (((Mikey goes to Hollywood)))

          Well, there are now more people than ever before, so assuming sin per person is constant, then (sin*population) has never been higher.

        • Kendall Fields

          And tell me how a sacrifice of people is comparable to a sacrifice of animals? And again Jesus never sacrificed himself to God.

        • Michael Neville

          People are animals. The majority of Christians would disagree about Jesus sacrificing himself to god.

        • Nankay

          To whom was the sacrifice made then?

        • Kendall Fields

          Why are you asking the same thing?

        • Nankay

          You haven’t answered the question.

        • Kendall Fields

          And you haven’t.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Hint: MOST torture ends in death, in close temporal proximity to the pain caused.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There’s not really a good way to die.

          And, in canon, yahweh is so impotent, stupid, stubborn, and overall fucked up that it won’t accept anything but a blood sacrifice before it allows itself to forgive itself for its own ‘creation’.

        • After you’ve had six months of pain from cancer (sorry–no painkillers for this experiment), check back in with us. Tell us if you think that 6 hours of agony on a cross would’ve been easier.

        • Zeta

          If Jesus was as powerful as what Christians claim (raised dead people, cured the blind, walked on water, etc, etc), pain control should be child’s play.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          OOOOoooo, good point!

          Gonna have to make a note of that.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Pray’…it’s the least you can do.

          TALK about praying…violate Matt 6:5-6 as a sop to your battered ego and as a pathetic attempt at a sneer.

        • Nankay

          If I knew by sacrificing myself I could save my children, I would without a second thought. What’s so special about what your Jesus did?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          He knew his sacrifice would be short lived (an eyeblink in the grand scheme of things for an immortal being), and he was “saving” people from himself.

        • Kendall Fields

          Jesus was doing not just for his family but for everyone.

        • Nankay

          If some Bond villain type had his finger on The Button and was going to blow apart someplace filled with innocent people and I had a chance to stop it by saying take me, I’m pretty sure more than one average Joanne would say “Take me!”.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Especially if they knew they’d come back to life after a few days.

        • Kendall Fields

          And that is likely but also very unlikely. People rarely if ever try to sacrifice themselves for strangers. Nowadays especially.

        • Wouldn’t you?

          How many strangers would have to have their lives spared for you to sacrifice yours for theirs? For example, would you give your life to save 100 strangers’ lives?

          If so, you can see why we’d all be much more impressed with your sacrifice than that of Jesus.

        • Nankay

          Happens fairly frequently. Here’s a recent example of a teenager sacrificing himself for his NON family members in Florida. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/19/hero-teen-gets-hospital-visit-broward-sheriff/350456002/

        • Kendall Fields

          Yeah recent as in nearly two months ago. Still a good thing but doesn’t help your frequent point.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          When did Jesus take his time out? Much less recent than this.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yeah and his is still saving the souls of millions. The boy did a good thing though.

        • ORigel

          Saving the souls of millions from the tortures he set up for them. So virtuous. Not!

        • Kendall Fields

          Hell is only in place because of people rejecting God. You say he is not virtuous because he punishes sinners who do not want redemption.

        • ORigel

          We can only be redeemed by making it up to people we wronged. Not by being forgiven by an outside party.

          And torture is the most evil action imaginable. That’s why if you punished your child who rejected you with a hot metal rod, you would go to prison. We are nicer than Jesus, smarter than God.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong again.

          Per your fable, ‘god’ set up hell to punish rebellious angels. That is because he’s such a screwup that even the ‘perfect’ creations from his hand rebel.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Your attempts at making a bad caricature of Jesus just make this even more pathetic for you.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And your awful messages don’t help you much.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Come up with something better.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Wow you need to work on your comebacks.

        • Wow you need to work on your evidence.

        • Kendall Fields

          What is in Hell? People who commit sins and do not seek repentance. What is in Heaven? Those who repent of the sins they commit and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Nope the best proof of God is the universe itself and his word. And those bad “memes” don’t help your argument.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Human nature is sinless however we chose to commit sin from what is in the world.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          God is willing and able to prevent evil however people commit sin and reject him. God will not force us to do what we don’t want to do but we will suffer the consequences of the actions we commit.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And those who say God doesn’t exist are those who don’t have the honest to admit that he is real.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Nope because you guys have been playing a game of bring others to the path of sin.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Your “ten commandments” really aren’t good.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Nope but only through God are you righteous. You can claim to be moral but without God your morals are faulty.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Then explain the Atheists who killed and raped far more people than priests did which is wrong. Women have always been equal to men however they have not been given the exact same things as men until countries which were religious gave women the right to vote. Also suicide bombers still would exist just people doing it for their country. And since Atheism has risen the world has gotten worse.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And this picture is of?

        • Greg G.

          Frank lies.

        • Michael Neville

          Tu quoque is a logical fallacy.

        • Greg G.

          It’s Frank’s only weapon.

        • Pofarmer

          Should we point out that the Enlightenment was when women started to have some position on society?

        • Pofarmer

          And since Atheism has risen the world has gotten worse.

          That statement, quite frankly, is bullshit.

        • Greg G.

          The world got better when Christianity stopped murdering atheists so often.

        • Pofarmer

          Well, for atheists.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Wow these are some bad lies you put out. And the arrogance this person shows is a clear indicator of some their foolishness.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And tell how Jesus regrets dying for anyone?

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And this chart represents?

        • Greg G.

          Who am I supposed to believe, the facts or the holy beggar behind the pulpit?

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And the guys who try to say God doesn’t exist tend to scare people to get more money.

        • Greg G.

          But some of those deemed most righteous men in the Bible (Noah and Lot) were incestuous alcoholics.

        • BlackMamba44
        • BlackMamba44
        • Michael Neville

          You mean the god that kills people because he feels like it, orders genocide, rape and sexual slavery, and condones slavery? That god?

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And trying to praise Satanists really shows how lost you are.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Did God say rape is okay? Slavery in Israel and for part of the world was for economic reasons rather than for repressing people. They can be redeemed by family members and their masters can be charged with murder if they kill them. Did God say it was okay to abuse children? And God is the author of life and has the authority to punish us for our sins. So in the end you are not more moral than God.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Jesus was never sacrificed to God.

        • Greg G.

          When the Bible says the Israelites were slaughtering villages, the virgin girls could be taken hostage while her friends and family were killed. Then she was supposed to get a month to think about it, then the man could have his way with her whether she wanted it or not. If he wasn’t satisfied, he had to release, not sell her, because he had dishonored her, which means he took her virginity with or without consent.

          The penalty for raping a woman who was engaged was the death penalty. The “penalty” for raping a woman who was not engaged was to pay her father the price for a woman, marrying her, and not being permitted to divorce her.

        • BlackMamba44

          Did God say it was okay to abuse children?

          Deuteronomy 21:18-21
          “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

          Leviticus 20:9
          For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

          Proverbs 13:24
          Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

          Proverbs 23:13-14
          Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.

          Exodus 21:17
          “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.”

          Not to mention killing his own son (who is also him?)

        • Why is this hard? The Satanic Temple’s tenets are far, far more moral than the 10 Commandments in Ex. 34. Compare them and see.

          Or is your argument “I don’t care how stupid God’s commandments look, they’re just perfect because … because, y’know, God!”?

        • Greg G.

          They aren’t even commandments.

        • When the Satanic Temple’s tenets are better than the crap Moses brought down from the mountain in Ex. 34, you know your religion is bankrupt.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s wrong with them? Be specific.

        • (((Mikey goes to Hollywood)))

          I’m curious as to what objections you have to them.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And never trust a person who says God isn’t real.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And tell me how God’s power is fading?

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Wow your pictures get worse and worse. No one is amused.

        • Greg G.
        • Kevin K

          Stolen. This little episode told me one thing … I need to organize my memes better. They’re all over the place!!

        • Michael Neville

          Define “sin”.

        • al kimeea

          yeah, what is that? Some xians say it’s music, booze and dance.

          This song began when I read your comment

          https://youtu.be/jEgX64n3T7g

        • Paul B. Lot

          Love their more instrumental/jazzy stuff!

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that any god, let alone the sadistic, narcissistic bully you prefer, exists?

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Would you like to actually use your own words?

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And you using this bad picture is because?

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          You do realize that we don’t eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood right?

        • Kevin K
        • Greg G.

          I know of a nail shop called, “Easter Nails.” I don’t think they understood Christianity when they incorporated the business.

        • In Japan, I bought a bag of bath salts with the brand name “Sodom.”

          Sodom, salt–yes, I get the connection, but it’s not a happy connection. I can only guess that it turns you into a human salt lick.

        • Greg G.

          It’s all pretend. But Catholics equate putting the wafer in your pocket and taking it out of the church is like kidnapping Jesus.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          God’s perfect words teaching different Christians different things again. And God too lazy to tell us who is right. (Though I’ll be honest and say I’d be happier if he would expose all his abusive clergy and convince the hierarchies to kick them out and turn them in to the police)

        • Greg G.

          Maybe God is waiting for one person to get His Religion right. There is plenty of random mutations to religions. There needs to be some selective pressure to eliminate the ones that are way off.

        • Michael Neville

          There was selective pressure to eliminate mutated Christianity but the Inquisition had its fangs pulled in the 19th Century.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Repeating your dumb signs really doesn’t help your argument.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          So you say .

        • al kimeea

          Actually, they’re often funny and concise while being accurate portrayals of many aspects of xianity and its amalgam of earlier deities.

          To an outsider. Hard to see the beast from the belly. I imagine you were already hearing about doG while you were still in your Mum’s.

          Take this latest meme about assuaging one’s conscience.

          I don’t care that your deity might forgive me for hitting six animals (2 squirrels, 1 raccoon, 3 birds) with a vehicle. Despite my luck in receiving no damage or injury as a result. I’d rather I hadn’t hit them. A gruesome way to go…

          The image in the meme could be a shaman from any religion, past or present. Your argument boils down to all others being the wrong imaginary friend.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9f83768828d19816346664b56c91881450c0d0816e5034de8d58aea86400809b.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa3fe9440b3f80b4e0757aa94dfaf16ec0395018a9f48830361792f9a1d342c1.gif

        • You first. Give us actual evidence and reason rather than opinions.

        • Greg G.

          When did Frank ever do that?

        • al kimeea

          Cancer and ALS, etc are evil. I guess only xians with the proper kilt never suffer such evil

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          And the innocent will also suffer the consequences of the actions the evil commit. God won’t adjust the path of a bullet because he values the free will of the murderer too much.

        • Greg G.

          One more reason to condemn the shooter to hell and one less possible death bed conversion for the target. God just wants to condemn people.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          God does love you unconditionally and you must believe in. Jesus also said those who did not know the master’s will and did nothing will be punished less than those who did know and did nothing.

        • al kimeea

          Yeah. Worship or burn is as far from unconditional love as faith is from reason – as all your comments reveal

        • Kendall Fields

          Also you really need to stop trying.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          You do realize that Mary was still a virgin and after Gabriel explained what happened Joseph accepted what God wanted him to do and fully accepted Mary as his wife and Jesus as his son. You keep failing hard at these insults.

        • Kevin K

          You do realize that Mary fucked a Roman centurion and then had to make up a story to prevent her from being stoned to death … right?

        • Kendall Fields

          And where was this?

        • You do realize that Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with a miraculous virgin birth. Matthew’s claim of fulfilled prophecy is false.

          Whoops.

        • al kimeea

          Here’s Gabriel explaining things to Mo. Maybe you should be praying 5 times a day… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e217da34ba475eeae9530157fc9920d04d6ec57210a8fc2f3a3c3fee4f3d7a04.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          How do you know Mary was a virgin?

        • BlackMamba44
        • BlackMamba44

          OR – Gabriel talked to Mary

          Luke 1:26-33
          The Birth of Jesus Foretold
          26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

          29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

        • Greg G.

          Mary did reply in the next verse:

          Luke 1:34 (NIV)
          34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

          But look what happened to Zechariah when he questioned Gabriel after being told told about his future son, John the Baptist”

          Luke 1:18-19 (NIV)18 Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.”19 The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. 20 And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.”

          Gabriel owes Zechariah an apology.

        • Kodie

          Who put this dick Kendall Fields in charge of what people should do?

          I don’t like it.

        • Especially since Kendall seems to be ignoring most people, it becomes unanswerable propaganda.

        • Kodie

          It isn’t even propaganda. It’s not even up to the level of a compelling bumper sticker. Some Christian presuming to tell everyone else what they need to do with no reason…. there’s nothing of substance from Kendall Fields, it’s just yammering garbage.

        • Kendall told me telepathically (since they don’t speak to me directly) that they wanted to take 2 weeks off. That was a happy coincidence since I had just given them a 2-week suspension.

          Perhaps they’ll be in a more constructive mood in 2 weeks, though that’s obviously unlikely.

        • al kimeea

          The Buybull certainly fails as a convincing collection of the words of doG. No more convincing than the earlier religions it plagiarizes

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          No, the universe is obviously proof that Reorx exists and forged the world on his anvil, sending sparks into the sky to form the stars.

        • Michael Neville

          The existence of the universe is evidence of the universe. Nothing supernatural is proven by the universe. God’s “word” is a collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible. Christians like you say the Bible is true because the Bible says its true. Does the expression begging the question mean anything to you?

        • BlackMamba44
        • al kimeea

          or else… such an unbearable amount of love

        • BlackMamba44
        • al kimeea

          Let’s see. You said – “Hell is only in place because of people rejecting God. You say he is not
          virtuous because he punishes sinners who do not want redemption.”

          That kinda means the meme is an accurate caricature of a terribly abusive deity demanding worship to soothe eternal insecurities.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that a figment of your imagination is saving “souls” (another figment of your imagination). You need to give evidence that Jesus existed and is still active today and that souls exist. Ball’s in your court.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There’s no evidence that’s anything other than a figment of your imagination.

        • Do you really not understand the point? Ordinary, fallible humans do noble self-sacrificing things fairly frequently. Jesus’s sacrifice pales in comparison to even one of these examples.

        • Greg G.

          People don’t go out looking for someone to die for but it happens.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          It’s likely but also very unlikely?
          Is this another of God’s miracles?

        • Kendall Fields

          You compare God’s miracles to actions of individuals.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          No. What I meant was it appears it must be one of God’s miracles to allow something to be both likely and very unlikely.

        • Kendall Fields

          So you admit he exists.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          No, I’m making fun of you.

        • Kendall Fields

          Well you failed miserably. Have a pity cookie.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          You realize how stupid your statement was, don’t you?

        • Kendall Fields

          And you realize how foolish your arguments have been over this day right?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Accepting consensus reality and disbelieving con men isn’t ‘foolish’…making unsupported assertions and demanding obeisance IS foolish, however.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Kendall, be aware we’re not laughing WITH you, but AT your pathetic assertions.

        • ORigel

          No, we are exploring what the world would be like if God existed.

        • Kendall Fields

          God does exist but if you say he doesn’t exist then why argue about him.

        • ORigel

          Because people like you can’t keep their imaginary friend to themselves.

        • Greg G.

          Because we live in a world where religious nuts try to impose their religions on everybody else.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Because YOUR KIND keep trying to force your superstitious nonsense on us GOOD people just trying to live our lives.

        • Kodie

          If you’re secure in your faith, why do you come here? What reason do you have to bother people?

        • Lark62

          I’m chatting with you to finish my logical fallacy bingo card.

          Someone said the winner gets a kewpie doll. I always wanted to win a kewpie doll.

        • Kendall Fields

          And the logical fallacy is what?

        • Greg G.

          No, he didn’t. You wish he did.

        • Greg G.

          No, the actions of individuals are not imaginary.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          We compare your paper tiger to the actual tiger.

          And your paper tiger comes up wanting.

        • And it wasn’t that big a deal.

          Heck, I’d do it if I could eliminate cancer, say. And what Jesus claimed to have saved humanity from was far greater.

        • Greg G.

          Soldiers throw themselves on grenades to save others. They don’t expect to resurrect on the third day.

        • firebubbles310

          I thought we were supposed to be the Jeez’s Family. We are supposedly yahweh’s Children.

        • Yeah, but that’s not that big a deal if you’d only be out of action for a day and a half.

          Oh, no–hold on. That was when Jesus “died.” Never mind.

        • Greg G.

          Crucifixions could take days. The gospel crucifixion took a few hours.. Jesus was put in a tomb before the sabbath and the tomb was found empty about 36 hours later. Then he could eat and walk through walls. It sounds like the least uncomfortable crucifixion in history and the shortest death ever.

        • Kevin K

          And we’ll think for you.

        • Kendall Fields

          I appreciate it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Why tell us you’re praying?

          Wouldn’t we know, otherwise?

          Aside from violating Matt 6:5-6, you KNOW that if you didn’t tell us, we’d never know, because prayer hasn’t been shown to do anything except maybe calm the person praying.

        • Lark62

          Actually, in one study heart patients who were prayed for and not told did exactly as well as people who were not prayed for and not told.

          People who were told they were being prayed for did worse.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Didn’t Jesus tell us that if we pray like hypocrites, to show off how pious we are, then we’ll receive our reward on Earth?
          Kendall wants that reward, rather than the one Jesus promises if we pray in private.

        • Zeta

          Kendall Fields: “Jesus chose to sacrifice himself to redeem people of their sins.

          I have always been intrigued by 1 Peter 1:20: “He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

          My take is the following:
          Even before the universe was created, your god had already decided to “sacrifice” himself as his own son to save humans (yet to be created billions of years in the future) from he himself. So killing Jesus (i.e. he himself) for a few days was already on the grand agenda of your god. What is so great about this “sacrifice to save mankind” thing? It looks like Jesus did not “choose to sacrifice himself to redeem people of their sins.” It is all pre-planned. The so-called sin was fabricated as part of the plan.

        • epeeist

          I have always been intrigued by 1 Peter 1:20: “He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

          Foreordained hey? That means the future is determined doesn’t it, if this is so then there cannot be agent causality, we have no free will. Which rather puts all the evil in the world down to Kendall Fields god.

        • Zeta

          In this grand script, Jesus (god himself) was foreordained by he himself to die (How can god himself die?) and save humanity from he himself. He created the script and executed the script himself. It is laughable. It is all pretending. The hypocrisy is intolerable.

        • Kendall Fields

          And tell me how sin was fabricated as a part of the plan? And yes Jesus did sacrifice himself as he could have gotten away from the Jewish guards if he wanted to.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In canon, your ‘god’ fabricated it all, from the beginning.

          Kind of hard to blame something that’s working AS IT WAS DESIGNED (again, per canon).

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          But, in canon, Jeebus is *also* ‘god’, so he sacrificed *himself*.

          So Jeebus committed temporary suicide? Isn’t suicide supposed to be a sin?

        • You’re asking questions because you don’t want to answer any yourself?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Trying for *gotchas*, IMHO.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Yep. Lambs were SACRIFICIAL animals, substitutionary.

          But for yahweh, in canon, a dumb animal wouldn’t do…it wanted HUMAN blood.

        • Lark62

          And was Jesus a virgin?

        • Kendall Fields

          Did they say he had sex?

        • Lark62

          He’s your imaginary friend, I’m asking you.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how is he imaginary?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          When you can demonstrate your ‘god’, it’ll become something to be considered more than a figment of the imagination in a group delusion.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Did they say he ever urinated or shat?

        • Kodie

          He couldn’t shit, that’s why he cursed the fig tree.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Touche!

        • Greg G.

          “Feet” and “thigh” are often used as euphemisms for “genitals” in the Bible. So, when Jesus washed the disciple’s “feet”….

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          An omnipotent, omniscient ‘god’ could have gotten the text right, WITH NO CONFUSION, the first time, with ineffable ease.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It commends and glorifies genocide, rape, murder, and authoritarian following.

        • Kevin K

          It’s a torture porn.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how?

        • You should read it sometime. If you did the stuff God does–demanding genocide, supporting slavery–you’d be a terrible person.

        • Greg G.

          It is interesting that the people who Kendall Fields chooses to respond to and not respond to aligns with the people Frank didn’t block and did block when he was last here. Somebody should ask him if he defines omnipotence as the ability to do anything that is logically possible. Frank’s definition didn’t stop at logically possible.

        • Kendall isn’t responding to me. I guess I’m on the naughty list.

        • Kevin K

          I’m meming him. Kinda fun…but I’m running out of memes!

        • al kimeea

          Improper punctuation. ‘!!!’ is much more apropos

        • Greg G.

          I laughed so hard at that it made my head hurt.

        • al kimeea

          It’s funny because it’s true 😉

    • Which does nothing to change the Bible. You’re stuck with it, I’m afraid.

      “I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah.” (Ezekiel 20:25–6)

      Yep, God is kind of an asshole.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      That’s a pathetic dodge to get around black letter text that, IN CONTEXT, says something YOUR KIND would rather deny.

    • Kevin K

      I can make the bible say “I’m a little teapot”. Doesn’t make it real.

      You’re worshiping a fictional character.

      • Kendall Fields

        And who is fictional?

        • Greg G.

          And who is fictional?

          God, Holy Ghost, Satan, pretty much everybody mentioned in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, Samson and Delilah, Elijah, and Elisha for starters from the Old Testament.

          From the New Testament, start with Jesus, most of the disciples mentioned in the gospels that are not attested by Paul as apostles, Joseph (never mentioned in Mark), Mary (never mentioned by name in John), Bartimaeus, Lazarus, Judas Iscariot, the woman in the “woman at the well” trope, and many lesser characters.

          In Acts, there are many characters that are historical but used in fictional accounts. Some of them are named in Acts because Josephus mentioned the person in association with a character who is active in Acts.

          There are invented characters in the New Testament whose names are plays on the situation they are in. We know from earlier passages that “Barabbas” is Aramaic for “Son of the Father”, which makes him a parallel of the other “Son of the Father” so the scapegoat scenario is set up from Leviticus 16:5-22, where one goat is killed for the sins of the people and the other goat is released into the wilderness. Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) is the guy Paul literally bored to death as he fell asleep, then fell out of the window but Paul revived him, reflecting his name which means “Lucky”.

          I take most characters mentioned in the epistles as real people except for Jesus, who is only mentioned in references and allusions to the Old Testament. They know nothing about an itinerant preacher/teacher. The only things the early epistles can tell us about Jesus can be found in the Old Testament.

        • Kevin K

          Kendall Fields really stepped in it and doesn’t even realize it.

        • Kevin K

          Yahweh the Magnificent™ is a fictional character. His baby boy Jeebus as well. Lucifer/Satan, too. Angels are all fictional. Demons are fictional. There was no Adam, no Eve, no Noah, no Job, most likely no “Moses” (unless he wrote about his own death), no Jonah (and no whale). There was no talking snake. There was no talking ass. A she bear did not kill 42 children for taunting a bald man. There was no tower at no place called Babel. There was NO FUCKING CENSUS. There was no water turned into wine. No one walked on water. Nobody rode into Jerusalem announcing themselves as a new king and got themselves killed for their trouble. There was no tomb, no stone, no one for Thomas to doubt and to stick his fingers in his holey (not holy) side.

          Fictional accounts are fictional.

        • Kendall Fields

          And how is God fictional? How is Jesus fictional? How are all the events in the Bible fictional?

        • Kevin K

          You can tell they’re fictional in the same way you can tell that Krishna is a fictional character contained in the Gitas.
          And Hercules and his Labors.
          And Mithra. And Romulus. And Dionysus. And Persephone. And dozens of others.

          You tell me … how do you know those characters are fictional?

        • Kendall Fields

          They are representations of mankind’s sin and subsequent fall away from God.

        • Kevin K

          “Representations” = “fiction”.

          You’re almost there. One more step.

        • Kendall Fields

          And God is nothing like them. He is the only God.

        • Kevin K

          BZZZT.

          So close. Wrong answer. Your god is as fictional as the rest of them.

          “God” doesn’t even declare it’s the only god, FWIW. In fact, it specifically acknowledges other gods, but only wants people to fill the collection plates be worshiped first.

        • Kendall Fields

          Nope he is the only God. So the one with the wrong answer is you. So sorry try again in another millennium.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          God gives you a brain to use knowledge and make the right choice. Following the God is the right choice.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          So tell me where the other civilizations in the universe are? And let us not forget about the millions of Christians killed and imprisoned by those who say no god exists.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And I am pretty sure your toast tastes awful.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          And those who say sin doesn’t exist often blind themselves to their sins.

        • Greg G.

          Do you understand the words “potential” and “may be”?

        • Kendall Fields

          God created the universe and any life that resides in it.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          To stupid understand God’s word? Rely solely on science which constantly has to change.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Keep going you are driving everyone crazy with these bad pictures.

        • Michael Neville

          God’s word changes every time someone reinterprets it. That’s why there are 45,000 different sects of Christianity.

        • Kevin K
        • Kendall Fields

          Wow you failed to describe God in every aspect. Well done.

        • al kimeea

          or else ain’t much of a choice

        • Greg G.

          Eeewwww! What’s that smell? Oh. Hi, Frank!

        • Kevin K

          Is is really Frank, or a Frank wanna be? If it’s Frank, it’s going into the dustbin.

        • Greg G.

          Walks like Frank,
          Quacks like Frank,
          Uses the same argument style as Frank,
          Appears to have pre-blocked the same people Frank blocked before he was booted.

          Bob has already sent Kendall Frank on a two-week vacation.

        • Kevin K

          Well, he’s in my permanent time-out, then. The good news is that I organized all my memes because of him.

        • Greg G.

          I enjoyed and collected many of them. Thanks!

        • TheNuszAbides

          nice collection, too!

    • BlackMamba44
  • The straw that broke the camel’s back for me with Christianity was the concept of blood sacrifice. Christians like to say that their religion is different in that regard. But in the end, a god got mad, and something had to die.

    • Cozmo the Magician

      So mad that he had to kill himself… go figure. Reminds me of a child saying “I’m gonna hold my breath and turn blue unless you give me ice cream!” Good luck with that.

      • Lark62

        The story is my brother would do that. My mom panicked and called the pediatrician who said “Don’t worry. He’ll start breathing as soon as he passes out.” Brother stopped when he realized it no longer got a reaction.

        Hmm. Maybe, there’s a lesson here on how to treat a spoiled toddler deity.

    • Lark62

      Yes, that was the last straw for me too. “Deity angry. Something gotta die.” And the supposed “good news” is based entirely on the supposed deity’s blood lust.

      • Yeah, the “good news” is that Hulk isn’t going to kill you. (Probably.)

  • RichardSRussell

    “As a source of objective morality, the Bible is one of the worst books we have. It might have been the very worst, in fact — if we didn’t also happen to have the Koran.”

    —Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

  • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

    God couldn’t have just told Abraham. “I don’t like human sacrifice. Don’t do it.” ?
    No, he has to have Abraham prove that he’s a horrible father so that He can make a point of apparently being slightly less of a monster than Abraham first thought he was.

    • It all makes sense when you realize that God wasn’t giving a loyalty test, he was giving a morality test.

      God: I want you to kill Isaac.
      Abraham: Uh … no?
      God: Ding, ding, ding! You win!

      It’s way shorter, too.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        Sadly, Abraham failed…

        • Kevin K

          And therefore is the father of three major religions.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So it should be the Abraham Principle rather than the Peter Principle?

        • TheNuszAbides

          either way, they all end up Paying Paul.

        • Most hilariously (or tragically), Christians sometimes come back with, “Ah, but the Ten Commandments hadn’t been issued yet!” as if that means that murder was OK.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Guess they never read the story about Cain and Abel.

        • Greg G.

          Moses killed a slave master, then ran away for forty years, all before the Ten Commandments. It’s like the Egyptians figured out murder was wrong before God did.

    • Michael Neville

      I’ve see Yahweh setting Abraham up to sacrifice Isaac and then, at the last minute, giving Isaac a reprieve. Yahweh then tells Abraham: “Abe, I really had you going there. It was hilarious seeing you sweat bullets. I laughed so hard I almost peed myself.”

      When he’s not smiting someone Yahweh likes to play practical jokes. That goes along with his sadistic, bullying nature.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        It’s like the dinosaur fossils and all the geological evidence of an Old Earth. God just put that evidence there as a joke to fool scientists. Then, when the scientists believe the evidence they find, he sends them to hell! BWAHAHA! He’s such a joker.

      • Ficino

        Practical jokes like when Yahweh moons Moses?

      • Greg G.

        Shouldn’t a sacrifice be giving up something you have? Is killing a hapless beast you happen to cross paths with really a sacrifice? When I see videos of people freeing an animal from a situation that would lead to a slow, painful death, I think the person is good. If I saw a person kill the animal, I would think the person was bad. If the person rescued the animal only to sacrifice it, I would thing the person was crazy.

  • skl

    “So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could
    not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that
    I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah
    (Ezekiel
    20:25–6).”

    Like a warning.
    The earthly, temporal stuff may be horrific, but it’s just child’s
    play compared to an eternity of horror (i.e. hell).
    This fits my “extreme god” hypothesis.
    An extreme warning of worse extremes to come, unless they shape up.

    • Lark62

      The imaginary deity you worship is a jerk.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        An EXTREME jerk.
        God is so 90s

        • Otto

          skl should call him X-God

      • Joe

        The picture I’m getting of skl’s belief, just from his comments thus far is:

        Either a weak deist-Christian or a extreme “fire and brimstone” Christian. He either doesn’t’ accept that the God mentioned in the Bible is cruel, or doesn’t care.
        An intelligent designer advocate. Can’t say if they’re a creationist.
        A moral realist.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          He’s the “Might Makes Right” type. God has the might, so we can’t criticize anything he does. He’ll throw his lot behind anyone if it means saving his own skin.

        • Joe

          Potentially, but I think he’s straw-manning the “non-religious moral objectivist” position instead.

        • Kevin K

          It’s a creationist of some sort, which makes it a “fire and brimstone” Christian. It pretends to be otherwise, and has failed miserably at convincing us.

    • Doubting Thomas

      Yes, the Bible fits your “extreme god” hypothesis.” Too bad reality refutes it.

      • Doubting Thomas

        On second thought, I guess reality could fit your “extreme god” hypothesis. In the Biblical days, god was extremely busy killing people and enjoying a good sacrifice. Today, he’s extremely absent from reality.

        I think the “it’s all a load of obvious fiction” hypothesis fits better.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      So he made the people evil on Earth so he could send them to worse horrors after death?

      That fits the evil god hypothesis.

      • skl

        “So he made the people evil on Earth so he
        could send them to worse horrors after death?
        That fits the evil god hypothesis.”

        “Extreme” fits better, I think.
        For this god also sends some to great happiness after death.

        • ORigel

          Imagine a serial killer who is nice to some people while torturing and killing others. That killer isn’t evil; just extreme.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Even evil men love their mamas!

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Reminds me of a bad RPG alignment system. Murder someone in cold blood? Evil. Donate to charity? Good.
          Murder someone in cold blood then take their money and donate it to charity? Neutral!

        • Kevin K

          Hitler was very nice to his friends and a bon vivant at parties.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Doesn’t make up for his extreme evil.

        • Lark62

          Maybe you could be happy in heaven while most of humanity is being tortured, but moral people fund the idea repugnant.

        • skl

          There are no “moral people”, there are only people who choose. Those with the most might will determine which choices are acceptable.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          And you choose to follow the monster described in the Bible.

        • skl

          You’ll believe what you want to believe about me.

          I’m just stating facts.

        • Susan

          I’m just stating facts.

          No. You are not.

          Go away, skl.

        • Joe

          Again, willfully misrepresenting the moral argument won’t win points against atheists. We’ve heard this crap before.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not in the US.

          Remember, we’re a nation of *laws*, not of *men*.

          So simply gaining power is insufficient. You have to convince enough of your neighbors you’re right if you want to impose it on others.

          Religion is VERY bad at convincing without using flame & sword.

        • skl

          “Remember, we’re a nation of *laws*, not of *men*…Religion is VERY bad at convincing without using flame & sword.”

          We’re a nation of laws, laws made by men. “Flame & sword” are behind every one of those laws as the ultimate enforcement.
          If WWII had turned out differently, we’d just have a different mentality wielding the flame & sword.

        • Joe

          Any god that accepts child sacrifice would be evil, no matter if he rewards a select few individuals.

        • skl

          There is no such thing as “evil”.

          There is only what the mighty find acceptable or unacceptable.

        • Joe

          Not true. The concept of evil is as real as any other.

        • skl

          So is the concept of a unicorn.

        • Joe

          Yes. Concepts are real to naturalists. You would do well to learn this and not pretend you didn’t see me telling you this.

          It’s the subject of a concept that may or may not be based in reality. This is ontology 101.

        • skl

          “It’s the subject of a concept that may or may not be based in reality. This is ontology 101.”

          And your subject is subjective.

        • Joe

          Not necessarily.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Evil is a description for acts, and does exist.

          And the mighty can fall if they flout the rules against evil too often.

        • skl

          “Evil is a description for acts, and does exist.”

          No, “evil” is a subjective label for certain objective acts.

        • Susan

          For this god also sends some to great happiness after death.

          Only in ski’s imaginary world.

          Where disingenuous weasels are sent to great happiness by an imaginary deity.

          Even though their brains have decomposed.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Shitty, abusive way of communicating.

      Not what to be expected from omnibenevolence.

    • Brian Curtis

      So, you concede that your god is a terrorist. Good; I agree.

      • skl

        Not my god.
        But yes, the god of the bible could be looked at as a terrorist. A terrorist for hellfire who is also a savior for heaven.

        • Pofarmer

          If God created Hell, he isn’t “saving” you from anything.

        • skl

          He’d be saving one from hell if one went to heaven.

        • Greg G.

          If spending eternity with a terrorist is your idea of heaven…

        • Pofarmer

          He could have just not created it.

        • skl

          Extreme is as extreme does.

        • Michael Neville

          So you admit your god is an extremist. Either love him and get harp lessons or don’t love him (that doesn’t mean hate him, it means not loving him) and don’t bother to pack an overcoat for the afterlife.

        • skl

          “So you admit your god is an extremist.”

          No.
          I admit that the god of the bible is an extremist.
          It should be obvious to anyone who reads it.

        • Michael Neville

          Are you still trying to pretend you’re an atheist? Nobody buys that silliness. I’d have a little bit of respect for you if you admitted what everyone here knows that you’re a Christian. Or you can continue to lie. Your choice.

        • skl

          You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I’m interested in getting your “respect.”

          Oh well.
          Your choice.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re right. You’re not interested in getting anyone’s respect because if you were then you wouldn’t be a liar.

          Just for curiosity’s sake, why do you pretend to be an atheist when you make it plain that you’re not? Do you think it adds gravitas to your weak arguments? Do you think we’re going to say “skl thinks like me, he/she/it must be right”? Or is it just a hope of fitting into this community?

        • Zeta

          There seems to be a disproportionately higher number of liars and pretenders among apologists. Perhaps it is not very surprising given that their god leads by example. He is the original and greatest pretender of all, pretending to die in order to save humanity from he himself. Then we find pretenders among well-known apologists with faked or dubious PhDs and other faked credentials (Kent Hovind, Joyce Meyer, David Barton, Ravi Zacharias, etc). Now we also have skl pretending to be an atheist, or at least he pretends to be a non-Christian.

        • skl

          “You’re not interested in getting anyone’s
          respect because if you were then you wouldn’t be a liar.”

          I thought one of the reasons people lie is to try to get respect.
          You obviously think differently.

        • Michael Neville

          People do lie to get respect. However when it’s obvious that they’re lying, then respect cannot be something they’re after. Since you are a quite transparent liar, then respect does not enter into whatever it is that makes you lie.

        • skl

          I’m not interested in dealing with an ad hominem machine.

          Good day.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m not interested in dealing with liars.

  • Mojohand

    I’m surprised no one brought up the lovely story of Jephthah from Judges 11. There is a shitload of wrong in this anecdote but what really takes the cake is God’s implicit approval of child sacrifice. The idiocy of Jeph’s ‘vow’ (wtf did he think was going to come out of his house?!) is superseded only by Yahweh’s complete indifference (where was Abe’s angel to stay his hand—he even had two months!). The final frosting on this shitcake is that Jephthah is named in the ‘Faith Hall of Fame’ in Hebrews 11 (v 32-33).

    I’m not sure what would be worse—if this story is true or if it was made up to illustrate some ‘moral’ point…

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Well, the ‘coming out of the house’ part is easy…they kept their livestock in with them….(nope, not goin’ there…. 😉 )

      • Mojohand

        True, but upon arriving home from an extended battle one could easily surmise that a loved one (human!) would make the first appearance (unless they had Labs?).

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Dearly Be-Lab-ed…”

    • Joe

      (wtf did he think was going to come out of his house?!)

      He was probably hoping it was his wife.

  • Otto

    I remember when I was 4-5 years old looking at a Bible, I couldn’t read but it was one of those Bibles that had a handful of pictures/art scattered throughout it. The first one was of Abraham getting ready to sacrifice Issac on the alter. Not exactly a family friendly image for a 4 year old.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      More horrifying now that I’m a parent.

      • Otto

        Exactly. I knew my religious upbringing was awful and damaging but I saw it in a whole new light when my son (who was not brought up in religion) watched a part of a show on exercise and demon possession, only about 20 minutes. He was horrified…seeing it through him was eye opening and made me realize that the reality I was told was absolutely real as a kid could only be described as abusive.

        • Greg G.

          exercise and demon possession

          Is that “exercise” or “exorcise”? The doctor told me to do more of one of those.

        • Otto

          Beelzebub dances to the hits…very popular exercise vid

        • Greg G.

          I am still having trouble with the neck exorcises. I can’t do the 360 spin.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Does he do the Fandango with Scaramouche?

        • Greg G.

          Now I have the “thunder bolts and lightning, very, very frightening” ear worm. Thanks.

        • boneheadaudio

          No, but he has a devil put aside for me for Me for MEEEEE.

    • epicurus

      I was about the same age and had a sticker book where my mom would read the story and I would find the sticker image that matched and place it beside the story. And the first one was Abraham about to plunge the knife.

      • Annerdr

        Yes, and these are the reasons I protected my young son from many of the Bible stories. I was Christian at the time, but Toy Story gave the boy nightmares. I could imagine what Abraham sacrificing his son would do, so we read Go Dog Go, which made the boy laugh and fall asleep.

        • epicurus

          Very wise

    • Keith Taylor

      My blood oath, no. I saw one like that in my illustrated Bible too as a kid.
      I’m with old Bertrand Russell. Large portions of it read more like the book of a demon than the book of a god anybody would want to worship.

  • Joe

    For the Canaanite genocide, Craig’s punch line is that every Canaanite adult deserved death because they sacrificed children to their god,

    To me, this is one of the worst apologetics ever invented pulled from an apologist’s rectum. The child-murder was so abhorrent, so the solution was to murder their children?

    • Otto

      ‘In order to stop all of the child sacrifice these people were doing…they needed to kill a whole bunch of kids’

      ….seems legit

      • Joe

        Can’t sacrifice kids if there are no kids to sacrifice. Checkmate Canaanites.

      • Brian Curtis

        Yep, we had to save that village in Vietnam… the only way we could. *gag*

    • Kevin K

      Not just children. All the pregnant women as well. So…abortion!! EEEK!!!!!

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    I don’t recall where I read it, but a nugget I stumbled upon was that Abraham’s willingness to kill Isaac actually demonstrates god’s acceptance of child sacrifice. If the request were out of character, then Abraham would have assumed it was an imposter (or something to that effect).

  • Kevin K

    Yeah, it’s really, really clear when you read it closely that they were up to their necks in it.

  • MindWarrior

    But….seeing as how God is portrayed as omnipotent, he already KNEW what Abraham’s reaction to this would have been…so all else is moot. Perhaps it was just a supreme being in need of some rollicking entertainment.

    • God as the Merry Prankster? Makes more sense than the story the Christians tell, I’ll give you that.

  • Yeah, right. Killing children is actually a good thing. (Are we living Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, where “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”?)
    Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/06/christianity-can-rot-your-brain-2/#ElxHKl2gYDGsYCQP.99

    Bob, I think you were 5 years too early on this statement.

  • Keith Taylor

    And Judges Chapter 11. I was a very earnest Sunday School pupil as a kid, and swallowed what they taught me uncritically, even though I liked science too. (The contradictions were bound to catch up one day, and they did.) And I nodded earnestly as I heard how horrible the tribes that surrounded Israel were, which made it okay to slaughter them. But then, in my teens, I read Judges Chapter 11 for myself, and started to feel pretty mad that my Sunday School teachers had never pointed that one out — in fact, clearly, led our attention away from it.
    God didn’t see fit to tell the war-leader Jephthah at the last minute, “Hey, don’t sacrifice your daughter to me, I’m okay with letting it go even though you did make a vow.”

    • God stopped the sacrifice of Isaac at the last minute. You’d think he’d do that in this situation, too.

      Maybe he was watching the game and didn’t notice.

      • Keith Taylor

        Of course, Isaac was a first-born son and he lived at a time when first-born sons were a big deal and the future of Abraham’s progeny wasn’t too certain, so just maybe Jephthah’s daughter — who isn’t even given a name to remember her by — wasn’t considered as important as all that. She was a girl, after all.
        It’s interesting that Jephthah, apparently one hell of a warrior and battle-leader, is described as the “son of a harlot” — maybe a temple prostitute among some of the heathen tribes around about — and his legitimate half-brothers kicked him out. To survive he gathered a bunch of no-goods around him and lived, it’s pretty clear, by banditry. Then his brothers called on him to fight for them when they were hard pressed by the Ammonites, and he was like, “What, you drove me out, and now you’re in trouble you want me to fight and bleed for you privy-scrapings? Get lost! No, wait. If I fight for you and win, I’m your ruler, and I want guarantees, too.” (All right, I added the last part, but if he didn’t ask for guarantees after what had happened before, he was dumb.)
        And then he promised Jehovah that if he won the battles, he’d offer as a burnt sacrifice the first person he met when he came home again. And it turned out to be his little daughter and only child. Which, aside from how disgusting it is, proves that even after the time of Abraham, and after the Exodus, the Hebrews still offered human sacrifice to their god now and again, at least in emergencies like war or famine.
        That’s another thing they taught me in Sunday School. And you, possibly. That the Hebrews were clean and virtuous, at least when they weren’t lapsing into heathen worship, and those other tribes like the Ammonites and Amalekites and Philistines were obscenely wicked because they had customs like human sacrifice and temple prostitution. Among the Hebrews the penalty for not being a virgin on her wedding night was death for a girl, and burning alive if she was a priest’s daughter. Now, Temple prostitution might have been degrading for a girl, but among the heathen it was considered okay, so at least she wasn’t shamed or killed for it. After doing her “temple service” she might even have a bit of prestige and a nice solid dowry to take back to her village — which absolutely beat being stoned or burned.
        I sort of wonder about those priests’ daughters who turned out to be other than virgin. Were their daddies ever the ones responsible? Spare me the rantings of the righteous.