Calling it into question...

[Redbeard The Pink]

Why?
In this day and age given the threats by ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the like, can you not ever see a reason to wipe your deep seated enemy from all power and possible threat?
If God truly gave us the power to not choose Him, then the other extreme (deep dark evil) has the opportunity to ingrain itself into a person or even a whole society of people.

Fair warning, everyone, this post is kind of long.

---

Who says the opposite of Jehovah is deep, dark evil (besides your bible, of course)? For all you know, Jehovah is the evil one, and that's why he had to make sure the bible constantly reminds us that he's good. The bible repeatedly tells us Jehovah is good, but if all those passages were gone and you looked strictly at his actions, would you still say he's good?  Even if we leave out slavery, after all the ordering and condoning of genocide, rape, infanticide; after all the instances of jealousy, rage, and hate; after annihilating virtually all human, plant, and animal life on Earth; and after all the other reprehensible suffering god has allegedly inflicted on humanity in his "holiness," is Jehovah really good, or is that just what the bible says about him to make you ignore the awful shit he does? Hmmm...


Furthermore...you realize that both ISIS and Al Qaeda have chosen god, right? Both of those factions are primarily comprised of muslims whose Abrahamic god has the same mythical origins as your own. You'd probably be inclined to say that Allah isn't the same god as Jehovah or that he doesn't exist at all, but Muslims could turn around and easily say the same thing about Jehovah, and you would both be powerless to prove each other wrong because neither of you has evidence of your claim. Besides, considering what murderous monsters both of those gods are on paper, it's far more likely that they're the same god than that they aren't.

Again as I have pointed out in the last slave thread, the definition of slavery has changed over the millennia. God's definition included paid servants and indentured servants as well as your definition, but with restrictions your definition does not include. But, the self righteous of this generation does not want to consider the truth of the matter only that God has violated their anti hot topic doctrines.

I feel like I'm gonna be starting a lot of these counters with the phrase, "You do realize..."


You do realize (or perhaps not) that "indentured servant" is another way of saying "debt slave," right? It's still a form of slavery, and it still violates human rights. Historically speaking, many indentured servants spent the rest of their lives in servitude, unable to work off their debt often because their owners would add to it arbitrarily.


And you're right, the Bible does have some laws about slavery. I'm guessing you think these "restrictions" improved the quality of the slaves' lives. Let's look at a few of those from Exodus 21 (English Standard Version was the first to pop up in my search, so I'll roll with it):

Verses 2-6: "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever."

This means that if a Hebrew man is bought as a slave, he can't keep his wife with him when he's freed unless they were bought together. If they weren't bought together, the only way to keep the family together is for the man to give up his freedom forever. Right there is a situation where the god you serve condones splitting up a family as long as the members are slaves, and the only way for the husband to prevent this is to agree to become a slave for life. Notice, also, that the passage says nothing of freeing female or child slaves...only adult men. What a kind version of slavery this is.

Verses 7-11: “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

At first glance, this passage probably looks like it's protecting the rights of slave girls with whom their masters are not "pleased" (I think we all know what that means), but I'd like to point out a few things. For one, this passage governs the prospect of a man selling his own daughter into sexual slavery (don't even fuck with me on this point, we all know what it means to "please" a man, and the bible writers knew, too...I will go preacher's kid on your ass with some biblical Hebrew if you really want to open that bag of dicks and start sucking).


I realize this practice of selling one's own daughter into whoredom is still common in parts of the world, but that doesn't stop it from being completely despicable and a broad violation of very basic human rights. There's also the caveat at the end, which states that if the slave isn't properly cared for, she will be set free without having to buy her freedom. This might seem like a boon, but effectively it gives masters license to simply turn loose female slaves they're not pleased with. As you've stated elsewhere in your post, a lone woman (especially a former slave) would have practically no option but to sell herself back into slavery or die. What a kind version of slavery this is.

Verses 20-21: “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

So this is another passage that seems to protect the slaves but actually condones their mistreatment, in this case the mistreatment being actual murder. According to this passage, a man will be slain if he kills a slave by striking him with a rod...unless the slave doesn't die right away. As long as he or she lasts a good "day or two" (why the vagueness, Lord?), the master is in the clear. Bottom line: the bible lets you get away with killing your slaves by beating them to death with a stick. What a kind version of slavery this is.

Verses 26-27: “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

Yet another passage pretending to be a protection and actually being something else: this time it's instructions how how specifically to beat your slaves. Knocking out their eyes and teeth is a no-no that will lose you a slave, so avoid the face with that punishment stick and remember to leave them just alive enough to not die for at least a day. What a kind version of slavery this is


There's a host of rules like this in that passage, and I don't really feel the need to list every single one. I'm sure you get the idea (or maybe you don't)

:Roflol: Do you support abortion? 

Come on, dude. Nobody supports abortion. Even supporting a woman's right to choose isn't supporting abortion...just human rights. Before you go telling me that a fetus is a human, I'd like to point out that science says otherwise; that up to a certain point in pregnancy, the embryo does not physiologically qualify as a human being. Furthermore, my moral character dictates that (in most cases) the rights of an actual, live human supersede the rights of a potential, unborn human. Without the bible, prove me wrong. I'll wait.

??? The only thing He says you can't eat is what you think it is a sin to eat... What are you talking about?

Ummm...kosher laws, dumbass? Shellfish? Pork? ANY animal that does not both chew a cud and have cloven hooves? Ringing any bells?


And before you go trying to tell me that Jehovah rescinded kosher laws during Peter's vision in Acts, remember that passage expressly states that this vision represents the divine cleaning of the gentiles, not the actual food from the dream. Some also read the abolishment of kosher laws into it, but the passage doesn't actually say that, and to read that into it is speculation.

Do you not understand the term covet? It means to long or lust after your (alive) neighbor's wife.

Do you not understand that coveting is a thought crime, and that thought crime has no place in practical morality? Your god is worse than the NSA.

Do you know what would have happened to the widow if the brother did not marry her and have a son with her? Remember she did not live in modern western society. Meaning no welfare, no rights after the husband died, no way to support her family. So she would have to turn to slavery, or she would have died, and her husband's lands/holding would be lost to her and any young children.
To marry your dead brother's wife was the way that ancient society supported widows and their children.

Refusing to marry his brother's wife is not what Onan was punished for. Onan did marry his brother's wife, and he took care of her for the rest of his life (which, admittedly, was not long). His specific sin was pulling out during sex so she wouldn't get pregnant. God killed a man for pulling out with his wife. Why aren't I dead yet? After all, the bible states clearly that children are the "lord's reward," so any action that willfully prevents conception is worthy of death by the logic here. You might say that he was punished for disobeying god, but why the disproportionate punishment? You're telling me raping a virgin gets you a slap on the wrist and a new wife, but pulling out while fucking your wife gets you killed? What the fuck?


Another fun fact about Onan and his brother's wife: by putting Onan to death, he was just making a widow of her all over again, which clearly indicates that he cares more for being obeyed than he does for tending to a widow's needs. Gee, what an awesome and benevolent god.

So.. Let's say a Member of ISIS who hates all Westerners and anything not ISIS Muslim would die a terrible death IF you did not take Him/Them into your house. Now keep in mind once in your house they have full intention of killing you and your family, taking your house and possessions and turning them over to their want, will and cause. Now the question is, do you invite them in to your home?

I realize this is supposed to be hypothetical, but it's a terrible hypothetical. This situation makes it pretty clear that I am this person's enemy, so why would he be trying to seek refuge in my house? Presumably it's my country's military that's after him. Such a person would likely try to simply kill me and seize my house rather than asking to be invited in and then killing me.


Let's entertain this hypothetical anyway, though, since it's so easy to pick apart. If you go to scripture, it's obvious what Jesus would do...he would turn the other cheek, let the guy in, and he and his family would get killed. If I were a christian who were trying to legitimately be christ-like, I would have no other option but to let my enemy in the door.


Jesus always said things like, "Bless your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you," and, "Whatever you do for the least of these you do for me...and whatever you do not do for the least of these, you also do not do for me." For all you know, that muslim at your door is actually Jesus seeing if you'll let him in, and by slamming the door in his face you're signing your lease in hell. Ever think of it that way? Probably not.

God's Home is creation. ALL Of It. You and anyone who does not want to spend eternity in the service of God is 'ISIS'. Why should God force us (Christians) to spend eternity fighting the rest of you? Hell is the one place 'we' (Christians) are not.

Ummm...you do realize that ISIS refers to a specific organization of muslim extremists, and that the people you're talking to on this forum are mostly atheists, right? How the fuck do you generate the logic that lands all non-christians in ISIS?

That's not true at all. God has provided a surplus of food in the west, and has commanded us (in the west/those with) to distribute it. This is not a God issue, this is a wicked servant issue. If it were a God issue then their would just flat out not be enough food.

The point is that an all-powerful god shouldn't need human help to end world hunger. Exodus describes magic food falling from the sky at various points so the people wouldn't starve while roaming the desert. What, does he just not do that shit any more? Why is it that when nobody is around with good documentation, god decides to roll up his sleeves and spray magic all over our face and hair in monumentally grand fashion, but the second empiricism shows up he suddenly quits that shit? For that matter, why is he so much more subtle with his magic in the New Testament than he was in the Old? Is he running out of magic points? Is that why he stopped doing miracles and updating the bible?

What makes you think science and medicine means God is not at work? Are you so foolish to think that God can only work in the unexplainable? If so where did you get that idea?

What about science and medicine makes you think God is at work? Everything about them is influenced by physical forces than can be accounted for, and there is no evidence to suggest that anything other than plain science has ever had a hand in healing people's illnesses and injuries. Before you start, faith healing (at least outside the pages of your myths) isn't a thing. There is not one documented case of a successful faith healing. The James Randi foundation, for one, has been looking for years and offering money to anyone who can prove it. Every time they investigate such a claim, they can either find no evidence the person was ever actually sick in a way that time and placebo wouldn't treat, or they find that the person is still gravely ill with whatever they had to begin with and have simply stopped going to the doctor because they think Jesus healed them. People who rely on faith healing die. Parents who take terminal children to faith healers instead of doctors are murderers. If you think otherwise, the facts simply disagree with you.

Cancer and 'other deadly diseases' are or can be tools God uses to strengthen and grow our understanding and faith. Why would He remove such an effective tool?

Because he's supposed to be all-powerful, he should be able to use any tool he wants (or no tools at all), and he's supposed to be all loving, so he should be able to choose a tool that doesn't bring us suffering. This whole "God's plan works in mysterious ways" argument is one of the most infuriating claims forwarded by theists because it's such a copout answer. The fact is your omnipresent, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god stands near and watches every atrocity on earth without so much as twitching a divine finger.


Put yourself in those shoes for a minute. Let's say your only daughter, whom you desperately love, is horrendously and painfully sick. Let's say that she's not terminal and could get better with time, but it will be emotionally and physically costly as well as painful and lengthy. On the other hand, there is a quick, easy, painless cure for her problem that is well within your means. If you cure her, you will deprive her of the hardship she would have gone through, and therefore the opportunity to build character from it; however, you are also all-knowing and all-powerful, and are therefore easily able to find another way for her to build character. What do you do?



If your answer is anything other than, "Cure my daughter immediately and find some other way for her to build character," then you do not love your daughter, no matter what you say, and also, fuck you.

---