Can a xtian god be free?

[Zenith]

I am unaware of which language you speak Zenith so please accept my apologies for asuming you speak and read english.

Don't worry, I can understand ordinary discussions (there are rare cases on the forum when I need to search a word in dictionary). But KJV is (or at least, was at the time I attempted to read it) a bit hard - it's about what words I've encountered so far (words that must be checked what they mean and that to be kept in mind). The fact that I meant is that I can't read KJV without using a dictionary very often (while NKJV seemed to be more readable). Anyway, don't worry, I can use translators and dictionaries.

The linky below is for the Ten Commandments (wiki has a translator) and compares them between the three major abrahamic religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

I don't understand the purpose of that. Islam was developed from Christianity + Judaism of the era, plus some cultural elements and influences. Christianity was born as a heresy from Judaism. The Jews have also been changing their views upon their holy texts in time (I sincerely don't believe that the Jews today believe and understand the things exactly the same way the Jews of 2500 years ago did). So we all have the 10 commandments from the Jews, and many different interpretations of it (catholic, talmudic, islamic, etc.). What's about it?

As for the other referrences ...they are scattered throughout the whole of the bibile/ torah/qu'ran and these will take much more of my time to track down...time I really don't have. Perhaps you may find the link below helpful as it goes into great depth regarding the abrahamic religions
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/time.html

Sorry for not discussing now every topic there. I'll just have to be picky, you add another topic to the discussion if you want.

OK, the first: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm
the thing that I've read was the problem with Sarah's age.
I'll tell you why I don't believe that that is an absurdity: The life expectancy of nowadays is about 80 years old (at least where I live in, very few people live after 80). If you read from Genesis, the life expectancy was much longer: Abraham lived 175 years, his father lived 205 years, etc. And if we think about Adam, it is written that he lived 930 years. So do you imagine that Adam was "young" only until about 40, then at the age of 50-60 to become "old", while since the age of 80 onwards was very old (to barely be able to walk, to look very ugly, etc.)?? It would be absurd to understand it as such. In other words, Adam must have looked at the age of 930 as a man nowadays looks at the age of 80-90, while at the age of 465 he should have looked as a man nowadays of 40-50 years. Likewise, if the life expectancy in the time of Abraham was 175 years, then at the age of 90, Sarah should have looked as a woman nowadays of 41 years old - and a woman can still be beautiful at this age.

So the issue is not Sarah being beautiful or not at that age, but the life expectancy.

I don't have the patience to read the others from this page, sorry - especially because the subjects here do not seem to be violence, or misogyny, child raping, etc.

This one in particular
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/execution-1.html

ok, let's see a few issues:
"What's Love Got to do With IT?" - the topic of how many times "love" or "happiness" or "joy" is written is simply irrelevant (unless you understand God as someone that can't even imagine what evil is, and that makes everything fluffy so everyone would be happy). I sincerely don't judge a religious holy book (like the Bible, Qur'an, etc.) by the number of words.

"Jehovah: Not so keen on the physically impaired" - besides the fact I'm 100% sure that YHWH was never spelled "Jehovah" (for some reasons), I don't see how God is evil by this. People with physical problems (even temporary) were only not allowed to enter the sacred place to perform rituals. The same as God did not accept a handicapped animal if it was brought as offering. It didn't mean that God hated that which is handicapped. (Now sorry for comparing men with animals here). Also, for some reasons God did not allow naked priests to bring offerings on the altar (they had to be dressed). But that doesn't mean that God hates His own creation (i.e. man's body was fashioned by Him).

striking or cursing your parents
"And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death ... And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." – Exodus 21.15,17

About smiting/striking:
It is not punching. An instance of this "striking" is when you grab a sword and strike him with it. It seems that it is usually used with the meaning of "killing"/"slaying" (i.e. in many verses is translated as such). It's about meaningful strikes, not accidents (e.g. an accident: you practice with your bow and suddenly your father appears near the target and gets struck by your arrow). Now, I don't see how the punishment for striking your father is worse than the act of striking, sorry (not everyone has the heart to grab the axe to strike his father with it).

As about cursing... this is what I've found (I don't know how trustworthy this source is, but it seems to give a good explanation):

A curse is a prayer or invocation expressing a wish that harm, misfortune, injury, great evil, etc., be brought upon another person, place, thing, clan, nation, etc.

Curses seem to have been a regular part of ancient cultures and may have been a way to frighten enemies and explain the apparent injustices of the world. There is no evidence that anyone has successfully invoked occult powers to do harm to others, but there is evidence that those who believe they have been cursed can be made miserable by exploiting that belief. Fear and the human tendency to confirmation bias and selective thinking can sometimes lead the believer to fulfill the curse.

Again, I don't think that anyone had the heart to curse his own father (e.g. to curse him to get ill by plague, to die slain, etc.).

"being a gluttonous or drunken son" - it talks about these verses:

18 “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 who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them,
19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city.
20 And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’
21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

First off, "gluttonous" does not mean "with great appetite". I've found that the hebrew word can also be translated as vile, frivolous.

Anyway, this is how I understand this:
We'll imagine the Jewish life when they were serving God (i.e. I'm 100% convinced that when they were serving other gods they did not care about punishing idolatry, sleeping with animals, or other stuff), when all people are concerned with serving God and keeping His commandments - a society in which people don't steal, don't kill others for money, don't cheat their wives, neither do the women cheat their husbands, there are no drunkards, etc. - people are conforming with the laws. And we have a devout family, that lives in this society, that is trying to do "good" and raise their children in these teachings (not to lie people, not to steal, not to be a drunkard, etc.). And after some time it happens in this family that one of the sons (while he is still young, living at his parents) rebels against his parents and ceases to care about their teachings (i.e. starts to give a damn about anything they say). On the other hand, he starts to do the things that are prohibited by the laws of God. The parents, seeing this, are trying to talk to him, are trying to convince him to change his ways (i.e. to admonish him), but he remains stubborn. Time passes in this way. It happens that the parents have tried for a long time to correct their son from his wicked way (i.e. against the law of God), but all they did was without any success. As there were no prisons on that time (as far as I know) and it seems that the son could not have been corrected no matter how much it was attempted, they were required to bring the son to the elders, where he was going to be convicted (the elders were the people that were judging the situations in the city - they were not a mindless mob that executed things without thinking anything). It was most surely not the greatest pleasure for the parents to have their son executed. While this son must have been an exception to the other youth, to receive death, rather than to keep the laws. That's a quite different situation than the one exposed on that web page.

being a false prophet

Oh my! The punishment for this (which is, death) is really unfit!
First off, we need to understand what a "prophet" is: a prophet is a man that speaks what God told him to. A false prophet is a man that only claims that God is speaking through him (they usually take the words in their minds as God's words). In this case, the first one that would be convicted is the Catholic Pope! Next, most (if not all) cardinals, archbishops, bishops, etc. and very many other religious leaders (pastors, priests, etc.)! If false prophets had not been venerated by the people throughout the ages, there would have been no crusades and other religious wars of christians (because the people were being sent to war by God's 'representative' - i.e. the Catholic Pope).

But yeah, it would be a shame to get rid of the religious leaders that claim that what they speak is from God, which they do in order to frighten, enslave, and make sure that their followers would blindly believe and follow them, wouldn't it? That would only allow people to think free!

and following another religion

Now these guys seem to misunderstand the verses in Deuteronomy (beside of the fact that in that time, there were not 'other religions' - there were only, 'other gods').
Anyway, to clarify the verses a bit:

6. “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers,
7. of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth,
8. you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him;
9. but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.
10. And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

The great problem was not following other gods (not religions, but gods - the term 'religion' didn't exist back then). If anyone desired to worship the other gods, they could have gone out of Israel (fortunately, in that time you needn't a passport, or any other documents to last months until you are allowed to get out, and the neighboring countries were speaking a similar language, and were receiving new citizens). The problem was enticing the rest of Israel to forsake God and follow other gods - and things like this happened, the "holy people" of God, whom God has chosen, had been changed into a polytheist people that were doing just like their pagan neighbors were doing: serving their gods, sacrificing their children to them, practicing adultery, sex with animals, incest, etc. Now it would be an interesting thing for God to be happy with his chosen people to forsake Him and start doing all what He prohibited, wouldn't it?

kindling a fire (or any other work) on the sabbath
"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." – Exodus 35.2,31.14

First off: kindling a fire in that time was not as easy as it is now (i.e. only push a button). Kindling a fire meant going to gather woods, spending a lot of time to put them 'correctly' in one place to be able to start and continue the fire, lighting the fire by the rawest methods, struggle with it until it finally burns and you're ceased being worried that it would quench just after it seemed to start, and after it has lit successfully, come from time to time to add a wood or two on the fire to keep it burning - in other words, that was work.

Second off, it's a bit difficult to understand all what "work" means, and you can get quite a debate from this. But, in my terms, "work" is the opposite of "rest" (i.e. I don't consider turning on/off the light a "work", or pressing the button of a lighter a work, etc.).

Third, this commandment was applied to everyone, so a man was not allowed to put his own slaves or servants/employee to work on the day of rest. Which seems to me quite nice, because people would normally force (or, would have normally forced) others to work non-stop. Everyone knew that the punishment for breaking the sabbath was death, so this could have been done only as a rebellion/defiance to the laws.

sex with a beast
"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." – Exodus 22.19

I don't know why I got the impression that the 21th people are more civilized and therefore disagree with sex with animals. But who knows, after a few decades perhaps people will go to a park, will see in the middle of it a naked young lady in the doggy style, with a big dog on top of her, fucking her, and will call it a "normal" thing. I, for one, can't imagine how God could have accepted from his "holy people" to do that.

ok, I've written a lot, and I've had enough and I'm quite tired.
If there's a certain subject you wish to discuss, or you disagree with me, I will wait your reply.

[KichigaiNeko]

Zenith.... (my apologies this is not one of my better days)

More for your reading pleasure....

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

http://www.evilbible.com/

On the subject of age I would say that the numbers are false, OR (and I stress that there is great doubt here) the 'time scales' are not the 'years' you and I know. Where you and I know of many years of life due to advances in hygiene and medicine these things were not available in the so called "biblical time period"

---

The linky below is for the Ten Commandments (wiki has a translator) and compares them between the three major abrahamic religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

I don't understand the purpose of that. Islam was developed from Christianity + Judaism of the era, plus some cultural elements and influences. Christianity was born as a heresy from Judaism. The Jews have also been changing their views upon their holy texts in time (I sincerely don't believe that the Jews today believe and understand the things exactly the same way the Jews of 2500 years ago did). So we all have the 10 commandments from the Jews, and many different interpretations of it (catholic, talmudic, islamic, etc.). What's about it?

I gave that link as a foundation reference. To establish that the 'Three religions' are one and the same. Ergo should the Qur'an promote the "beating of wives" this has been plagiarised from the other two, right down to the central Ten Commandments of all three religions. Now should you investigate further you will find similar edicts from Babylonian and Sumerian sacred texts.

It has been my observation that when a group wish to conquer another the first thing they do is "Demonise" the opponents gods/ god (=leaders). To ensure "their god is a bigger bully" than their opponents they anthropomorphisise the worst of human atrocities onto their deity of choice which is tantamount to saying... "See? If our god is such a 'Bad-Arse bastard' what makes you think that his followers are going to be a pushover?"

In this way the Judeo-Xtian-Islamic god is not free as you or I, nor what we would expect from an immortal deity to be free

[Zenith]

I gave that link as a foundation reference. To establish that the 'Three religions' are one and the same.

Sorry, but the ten commandments do not suggest that all these three religions are one and the same.

Anyway, I should add to this the fact that:
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Islam)
1. In Islam there is no section "the 10 commandments" or something. These commandments are barely found throughout the Qur'an, at random places;
2. The second commandment is quite different than the Christian/Jewish version: "idol" usually means "false god", whereas in the Christian/Jewish version, the prohibition here is to make an image to God or to a god. Plus, The second 'commandment' is not even a commandment in the Qur'an.
3. The Qur'an does not say "thou shalt not take God's name in vain", but only not to make a false oath with the name of Allah.
4. The 9th commandment is not quite "do not bear false witness" in the Qur'an, but "to tell everything".
5. The 10th commandment is not a personal thing (thou shalt not covet what X has) but a country thing (ye shall not covet what other peoples have).

Ergo should the Qur'an promote the "beating of wives" this has been plagiarised from the other two, right down to the central Ten Commandments of all three religions.

Seriously? Please tell me, what commandment of the ten does suggest beating of wives?

Now should you investigate further you will find similar edicts from Babylonian and Sumerian sacred texts.

I understand that you've studied about them. Perhaps you can ease my work and give me a link or something (so I would not search a lot).

It has been my observation that when a group wish to conquer another the first thing they do is "Demonise" the opponents gods/ god (=leaders). To ensure "their god is a bigger bully" than their opponents they anthropomorphisise the worst of human atrocities onto their deity of choice which is tantamount to saying... "See? If our god is such a 'Bad-Arse bastard' what makes you think that his followers are going to be a pushover?"

It escaped my observation. Christianity considered all other gods as false, so there was usually no need to show them as evil. As about polytheistic countries, the religions usually merged: the god of war from people X already existed in people Y but with different name, so it was the same god! attributes and stories got combined, etc. Also, when the war was regarded as "our gods vs. your gods", the conquerors viewed their gods as the strong conquering gods, while the defeated gods as the weak gods that should not be worshiped any longer, because they could not protect their people (and we have stronger gods here!).

In this way the Judeo-Xtian-Islamic god is not free as you or I, nor what we would expect from an immortal deity to be free

Sorry, I don't understand. How do you get from the 10 commandments or from the history of gods/religions or from the resemblance between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, that God is not free?

[KichigaiNeko]

I gave that link as a foundation reference. To establish that the 'Three religions' are one and the same.

Sorry, but the ten commandments do not suggest that all these three religions are one and the same.

Oh dear here we go.......

And how do you come to that conclusion???

Anyway, I should add to this the fact that:
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Islam)
1. In Islam there is no section "the 10 commandments" or something. These commandments are barely found throughout the Qur'an, at random places;

Funny how the torah does the same thing

2. The second commandment is quite different than the Christian/Jewish version: "idol" usually means "false god", whereas in the Christian/Jewish version, the prohibition here is to make an image to God or to a god. Plus, The second 'commandment' is not even a commandment in the Qur'an.

I am to understand that the Qu'ran and Hadiths state clearly that many images of Allah and Muhammad (his prophet) abound in the islamic countries then??

3. The Qur'an does not say "thou shalt not take God's name in vain", but only not to make a false oath with the name of Allah.

Which IS saying the same thing

4. The 9th commandment is not quite "do not bear false witness" in the Qur'an, but "to tell everything".

Very good dear again it is saying the same thing

5. The 10th commandment is not a personal thing (thou shalt not covet what X has) but a country thing (ye shall not covet what other peoples have).

Same thing again......yawn*

Ergo should the Qur'an promote the "beating of wives" this has been plagiarised from the other two, right down to the central Ten Commandments of all three religions.

Seriously? Please tell me, what commandment of the ten does suggest beating of wives?

Very nice to ignore everything I have been trying to tell you...check Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus. Like the Qu'ran the Torah and Bible a littered with these self same gems of how to treat ones wife/ wives, slaves, children, cattle/ livestock. All three promote the masculine dream of ownership.

Now should you investigate further you will find similar edicts from Babylonian and Sumerian sacred texts.

I understand that you've studied about them. Perhaps you can ease my work and give me a link or something (so I would not search a lot).

Do your own searching my friend

It has been my observation that when a group wish to conquer another the first thing they do is "Demonise" the opponents gods/ god (=leaders). To ensure "their god is a bigger bully" than their opponents they anthropomorphisise the worst of human atrocities onto their deity of choice which is tantamount to saying... "See? If our god is such a 'Bad-Arse bastard' what makes you think that his followers are going to be a pushover?"

It escaped my observation. Christianity considered all other gods as false, so there was usually no need to show them as evil. As about polytheistic countries, the religions usually merged: the god of war from people X already existed in people Y but with different name, so it was the same god! attributes and stories got combined, etc. Also, when the war was regarded as "our gods vs. your gods", the conquerors viewed their gods as the strong conquering gods, while the defeated gods as the weak gods that should not be worshiped any longer, because they could not protect their people (and we have stronger gods here!).

That is because you do not observe well and have the handicap of english not being your first language. Christianity plagiarised the 'pagan' religions of western Europe and took ALL of the feast days as it's own.

Thankyou ...you have proved my point.

In this way the Judeo-Xtian-Islamic god is not free as you or I, nor what we would expect from an immortal deity to be free

Sorry, I don't understand. How do you get from the 10 commandments or from the history of gods/religions or from the resemblance between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, that God is not free?

I read alot and so should you. From the 10 Commandments to every thing in the Traditional texts of the Abrahamic religions ....there are many authors imposing their will on their god. Using their god as the scape goat for their crimes and cruelty...it is a human thing.

[Zenith]

Sorry, but the ten commandments do not suggest that all these three religions are one and the same.

And how do you come to that conclusion???

Well, it's the same as saying that all plants are the same because all seeds are alike (little, grow when put in land, need water and minerals, etc.)
If the question is, if these three religions are similar, then yes, they are, and there are obvious reasons why they should be similar. But to say that Islam = Judaism = Christianity, that's quite ignoring a lot of stuff - starting with the perception of God in each religion, the countless traditional understandings of the religion's holy books (which became the standard of thinking), etc.

1. In Islam there is no section "the 10 commandments" or something. These commandments are barely found throughout the Qur'an, at random places;

Funny how the torah does the same thing

Oh my, do you realize the fact that the Christian Bible contains the Torah??
But even the fact that the Christian Bible contains the whole Jewish Bible does not make Christianity be the same as Judaism. And it's because of different culture, different development, different sages (as catholics have early church fathers and stuff, from whom they take their understanding as the absolute truth, the same way the Jews take their own sages with the sage's interpretations and understanding as the absolute truth - and the views and misinterpretations of the early church fathers are totally different than the views and misinterpretations of the jewish sages)

3. The Qur'an does not say "thou shalt not take God's name in vain", but only not to make a false oath with the name of Allah.

Which IS saying the same thing

Not at all.

...or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

(this is an instance)
how can you say that taking the name of God in vain is the same as an oath?

4. The 9th commandment is not quite "do not bear false witness" in the Qur'an, but "to tell everything".

Very good dear again it is saying the same thing

Not quite, the Qur'an implies what is in the 10 commandments, but the 9th commandment of the christian bible does not imply what the qur'an says.

5. The 10th commandment is not a personal thing (thou shalt not covet what X has) but a country thing (ye shall not covet what other peoples have).

Same thing again......yawn*

Again, it's not the same thing.
In the 10th commandment of the 10 it is prohibited to wish something that other has, because if you do, you are quite likely to do all it takes to have it (i.e. to steal the X thing because your neighbor doesn't want to give/sell it to you, to commit adultery because you desire his wife, etc.). The commandment in the qur'an simply means to be satisfied with your low situation, and not desire the well-being others have (as I understand from the qur'an, at least)

Ergo should the Qur'an promote the "beating of wives" this has been plagiarised from the other two, right down to the central Ten Commandments of all three religions.

Seriously? Please tell me, what commandment of the ten does suggest beating of wives?

Very nice to ignore everything I have been trying to tell you...check Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus. Like the Qu'ran the Torah and Bible a littered with these self same gems of how to treat ones wife/ wives, slaves, children, cattle/ livestock. All three promote the masculine dream of ownership.

The problem was that you said it wrong. It can't be from the 10 commandments, because the 10 commandments do not say anything about it. On the other side, in Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. you find much more than 10 (or, the 10) commandments.

Some differences regarding slavery: In the Jewish Bible (which also means, in the Christian Bible), a Jewish man can sell himself as a slave, but that means a servant for 7 years (Deuteronomy 15.12-14). In the Qur'an it seems that this law does not apply. In the Jewish Bible, women slaves are not taken as whores, but as wives (you cannot force them to prostitution, you cannot marry them if they are already married, etc.), while in the Qur'an you can force your woman slave to prostitution and ignore the fact that she is already married. (i.e. In the Christian Bible, adultery is considered adultery, whether it's about free men or slaves).

In the Christian Bible (which also means, in the Jewish Bible) there is no commandment to beat your wife (while in the Qur'an there is), in the Islamic Hadiths you find sex with child of 9 years old, in the Christian Bible you don't. As about cattle, I'm not a vegetarian so I'm not against killing animals (e.g. for food).

Now should you investigate further you will find similar edicts from Babylonian and Sumerian sacred texts.

I understand that you've studied about them. Perhaps you can ease my work and give me a link or something (so I would not search a lot).

Do your own searching my friend

Why so uninterested to give me a hand? Look, this time I'll reply a lot (which should prove that I'm not that lazy), so I guess that it's not much to ask you this.

It escaped my observation. Christianity considered all other gods as false, so there was usually no need to show them as evil. As about polytheistic countries, the religions usually merged: the god of war from people X already existed in people Y but with different name, so it was the same god! attributes and stories got combined, etc. Also, when the war was regarded as "our gods vs. your gods", the conquerors viewed their gods as the strong conquering gods, while the defeated gods as the weak gods that should not be worshiped any longer, because they could not protect their people (and we have stronger gods here!).

That is because you do not observe well and have the handicap of english not being your first language. Christianity plagiarised the 'pagan' religions of western Europe and took ALL of the feast days as it's own.

Thankyou ...you have proved my point.

I can manage even if my native language is not english. Please don't draw very quick conclusions.
As about my observance: I am aware that enemies are being demonised (i.e. make one appear as the devil or such diabolical creature) - I know that this was done regarding kings, but I didn't quite observe such a thing in what gods are concerned. As about Christianity (but not Judaism, as far as I know), the "devils" in 1 Corinthians 10.12 actually means "evil spirits", which also makes people not associate the goddess Persephone, for instance with "Satan" or "The Devil" or something you should run away when you hear. And I'm quite sure nobody looked to an image of a greek god and said to himself "run, it's the devil!" or something.

As about "Christianity plagiarised the 'pagan' religions of western Europe and took ALL of the feast days as it's own", I don't know why you've said it: I knew it, but it's not in the topic of demonising the opponent, and might be less than you imagine.

I read alot and so should you. From the 10 Commandments to every thing in the Traditional texts of the Abrahamic religions ....there are many authors imposing their will on their god. Using their god as the scape goat for their crimes and cruelty...it is a human thing.

I know that happens and I know that people impose their will calling it "God said so". But for the "God is not free" issue - which was the issue here - what you said does not prove either that the Christian God is not free (and here we've got too far from the main subject), or the impossibility for the Christian God to exist.

And about "people imposing their will on their god"... perhaps you know or can find a place in the bible to show me where a prophet (i.e. to be specified or suggested that he was as such) was seeking his own advantage and saying "God said that you should do it!" (e.g. to say that God commanded for woman X to marry him, because he wants her; to gain or ask money for himself from the people because God said so, etc.). As far as I know, Allah commanded anything that Muhammud desired, but I don't recall anything like that in the christian bible.

Another part will follow. (don't reply yet)

---

I've initially looked on the subject "Why the Christian God is Impossible", wrote a lot in a document, and then realized that it was quite off topic and that you are most surely not interested in the subject. So I wrote that small reply which you have replied already.

Today I've looked on some other topics (that are more on-topic) to talk about them. Anyway, it's a bit frustrating that I write a lot (which is, doing a lot of work and spending much time) when you work very little and spend very little time writing a quick short reply. That's why I would have enjoyed more if you had been more specific (i.e. tell me some verses yourself rather than give me a link to a site - for which a man would normally spend all his life to reply to everything).

ok, the first topic is "ritual sacrifice":
(http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm)

I'll try to make a short discussion on issues and I'm just gonna take the topics and explain them, not necessarily read all what it's about it (bec. I don't want to waste a lot of time) so if I skipped something important and you want me to talk about it, you'll have to mention it.

SACRIFICE: "Jephthah Burns His Daughter"
(Judges 11:29-40)

1. It wasn't God who asked that. Actually, it seems that God already decided to help them (Judges 10.16)
2. It was all man's stupidity: to make an oath. This experience he has passed through must have taught him to be careful what he swares to do.
3. I believe it was against the law to do what he did (i.e. killing an innocent man - from the 10 commandments and not only), but it seems that the things were not very organized then (read also Judges 17.6, and all Judges 17), so the law wasn't imposed as it should have been.

SACRIFICE: "God Commands Burning Humans"
(Joshua 7.15)

1. That's not a sacrifice. That's a death sentance.
2. Making an oath to God was not a superficial act (read Joshua 1.16-18).
3. The crime done is presented in Joshua 7.11.
4. It's interesting to see that God is really present among you, to make an oath that you would serve Him, and to defy Him by doing against what He commanded, isn't it?

SACRIFICE: "Josiah and Human Sacrifice"
(1 Kings 13:1-2)
(2 Kings 23:20-25)
That's not an "offering to God". It's a dismissal of the body, while the pagan altar was fit for something being burnt on it. It seems from 2 kings 23.16-18 that the remains of the 'good' man were the ones fit (or, nice) to be buried, while those of the evil ones were burnt (23.20).
As about killing the jewish pagan priests in the land of Israel that were bring offerings to the gods of Canaan, I've already spoken about it. But briefly, for a people that made a covenant with God (considering that God is and was real), jewish people of the land should have been faithful to the covenant or leave the land, instead of practicing their idol-worshiping there and instigating others to do the same.

SACRIFICE: "Human Sacrifice"
(Wisdom 3:5-7)
I would not normall comment this, as it belongs only in some bibles. But, what he said IS misinterpreted: it really says that God allowed good people to be killed by bad people (i.e. it's about people that have proven their faithfulness even when their life was threathened).

SACRIFICE: "Child Sacrifice"
(Wisdom 14:21-23)
Again, the same book, which does not belong in every bible. But, it's again misinterpreted: it says that people did not keep the law, were not being faithful to God, etc. So why should I understand that they brought children as an offering to God and not to other gods, in that case? The fact is that the text does NOT speak about an offering to God:

For a father afflicted with untimely mourning, when he hath made an image of his child soontaken away, now honoured him as a god, which was then a dead man, and delivered to those that were under him ceremonies and sacrifices. Thus in process of time an ungodly custom grown strong was kept as a law, and graven images were worshipped by the commandments of kings. Whom men could not honour in presence, because they dwelt far off, they took the counterfeit of his visage from far, and made an express image of a king whom they honoured, to the end that by this their forwardness they might flatter him that was absent, as if he were present. Also the singular diligence of the artificer did help to set forward the ignorant to more superstition. For he, peradventure willing to please one in authority, forced all his skill to make the resemblance of the best fashion. And so the multitude, allured by the grace of the work, took him now for a god, which a little before was but honoured. And this was an occasion to deceive the world: for men, serving either calamity or tyranny, did ascribe unto stones and stocks the incommunicable name.

Moreover this was not enough for them, that they erred in the knowledge of God; but whereas they lived in the great war of ignorance, those so great plagues called they peace. For whilst they slew their children in sacrifices, or used secret ceremonies, or made revellings of strange rites; They kept neither lives nor marriages any longer undefiled: but either one slew another traitorously, or grieved him by adultery. So that there reigned in all men without exception blood, manslaughter, theft, and dissimulation, corruption, unfaithfulness, tumults, perjury, Disquieting of good men, forgetfulness of good turns, defiling of souls, changing of kind, disorder in marriages, adultery, and shameless uncleanness.

Howbeit for both causes shall they be justly punished: both because they thought not well of God, giving heed unto idols, and also unjustly swore in deceit, despising holiness. For it is not the power of them by whom they swear: but it is the just vengeance of sinners, that punisheth always the offence of the ungodly.

Does that sound as some "early God-followers starting by sacrificing their own children" now?

SACRIFICE: "Humans are Fuel for Fire"
(Ezekiel 21:33-37)
1. That's not an offering to God or to a god.
2. If you read that carefully, it is written that God says that He decided to allow vile/evil/sadistic people (perhaps Assyrians or Babilonians - I don't know for sure the age to know which of them He referred to) to conquer them and to do what they wish to them. The prophecy is about the people (as a country), not about specific persons. Perhaps after conquering cities, the conquerors were burning the dead rather than being eager to dig a lot to burry every dead that no one cares for, in a nice place.

SACRIFICE: "Burn Nonbelievers"
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
I've already spoken about this issues. The last time I have posted about it I spoke about Deuteronomy 13.6. Deuteronomy 13.13-19 is an advanced situation (the people of that city were not willing to deal with that breaking of the law, but instead all followed and forsake the law).

[Zenith]

Now, I'll take about "Rape In The Bible"
(http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm)

RAPE: "1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead "
(Judges 21:10-24)

Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

Nice thing: he twists things that are there, he adds his own inventions and ideas, and then blames the original!

Before I explain...
For a clearer view of the situation, you should read Judges 19-21 (whole of it).

Now, after you do that, this is how things are explained in Judges 21.10-24:
1. The virgins were considered innocents (and, it was surely clear that they were not whores, nor slept with animals, etc.).
2. The Benjaminites (that is, the tribe of Benjamin - all descendends of Benjamin. It seems that the Jewish people were caring to have Benjaminites mary Benjaminites, and for the tribes to be separated) took as wives women of the virgins left (v.14).
3. In order for the rest of the Benjamin men to have wives and not remain lonely for the rest of their lives, and in order for the Benjamin tribe not to disappear, the Benjamin tribe had to marry women of other tribe(s). But, the problem is that these other tribes made an oath that they would not give their daughters as wives to the Benjamin men (oaths mattered back then). So the only possible way around it was to arrange things in such a way so that men of the Benjamin tribe would marry women of other tribes without the consent of the women's father (i.e. if the father of the woman allowed, it meant that he gave that man as a husband for his daughter, which he was forbidden to do due to the oath). The point is: the men took these women as wives, not as whores!

And, here there is no rape.

RAPE: "2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites"
(Numbers 31:7-18)
Murder? well, because it was war, it was obviously killing.
Rape? No, it was not rape.
Pillage? Well, back then you would have been an idiot not to take anything of the conquered cities. And people would have not gone to war knowing that they would die and suffer injuries and all for nothing: in a few years the enemy to recover and fight back and become a real problem for the Jewish people, again.

To understand why the people of Israel did that, you should read Numbers 31.16, 22.1-14, 25.1-4. The madians were using their women to corrupt the men of Israel:
The madianites and moab decided to beat Israel, but they could have not done that in ordinary circumstances. So, they first tried to convince Balaam - which seems to have been a prophet of God - to curse the people of Israel (because Numbers 22.6). He blessed them instead of cursing them. So another attempt to be able to beat them was to make the people of Israel separate from their God, by worshiping the madianite gods. I suppose they found out that their God forbade them to worship other gods. So they sent their women to marry men of Israel in order to make them sin against God (Number 31.16) - By marying madianite women (which were worshiping the madianite gods), they corrupted their Jewish husbands to do the same). And that thing seems to have been intended to separate the Jewish people from their God, to allow the madianites and moabits to beat Israel.

So why allow only virgin women alive? (which should have been young)
1. A "virgin" woman was still an innocent. This could not have been told for a non-virgin woman which might be a whore, might have slept with animals, etc. and now would have corrupted the Jewish people. Moreover, young virgin women were less likely to influence the Jewish people to serve the madianite gods, especially after the ones that served them have been defeated for good.
2. The "men" are those that take arms, those that fight. If the Jewish people would have taken men and boys for them, there was a high probability that these men would have still felt themselves madianites and would have turned against the people of Israel (but, the madianite virgin women that married Jewish people did not have madian children, neither before, nor after. And the offspring would have felt themselves as Jewish, not madianites).

The author of the article commented about this, saying:

Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.

(When it was not mentioned that they raped them)
But the point is: does this guy suggest that the Jewish people should have also killed the virgin women?

RAPE: "3) More Murder Rape and Pillage"
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
the author of the article said:

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

First off, it is not rape. And the women were taking as wives, not as whores.
Second off, in a fluffy world where everybody is insanely happy and smiling all the time saying all the time one to another how happy they feel, such a God is not fit. But in reality, we DO have (and the Jewish people of that time did have) the situation when a foreign people was waging wars with them, raiding them, permanently harassing them, and permanently representing a threat for them.

So, would God not be evil if He forbade His people to defend their children and their women and their own men from the attacks of foreign peoples? If yes, then how would God forbid them to fight against their attackers? And how do you deal with a people that is permanently attacking you? (think about 2500 years ago, not now) Not by attacking them back to cause them a good defeat to ensure that they would fear to, or would not be able to fight you and subdue you afterwards?

And, when you come with your army, if the enemy are willing to surrender, isn't it fit for them that caused trouble to pay tribute? Or, if they are willing to fight, isn't it fit to crush their power (military and economical), so they would not be able to raise their army against you tomorrow? And, as a king, you have to reward your soldiers that fought and suffered injuries in a battle where any of them or most of them could have died. So, after conquering a city, isn't it foolish to forbid them to take anything for themselves? And, what do you think, (in a context of 2500 years ago) if you send your troops to fight armed criminals (i.e. murderers, etc.) that are rich, and they fight them and kill them, is it fair to allow your troops to take their wealth, or not?

RAPE: "4) Laws of Rape"
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

28. “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,
29. then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Nowadays, such a case make you imagine the rapist as a worthless man, perhaps a drunkard, disloyal, perhaps that had sex with a lot of women (which would obviously make a woman not desire such a man), perhaps a thief, etc. - and that imagination may be justified. However, according to the Jewish laws, these bad things were being punished. If he had the bad luck of raping or sleeping with a betrothed or married woman, he would have been killed. Moreover, back then, a man (if he was not rich) was really required to work a lot in order to earn his living. So it was quite a low possibility for him to be a worthless man. And marrying her meant a responsibility on his head.

As about the woman: in a world where women were entering the marriage as virgins, it was a shame for a woman both not to be married and not to be virgin (i.e. I guess men were more likely to marry virgin young women, rather than non-virgin young women, and to feel bad when they knew that their neighbor X has touched her before). So perhaps this was done to fix this issues.

RAPE: "5) Death to the Rape Victim"
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
That's not a rape victim. That's a married/betrothed woman claiming that she was raped when is caught with her adulterer.

RAPE: "6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness""
(2 Samuel 12:11-14)
the author said:

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

1. Well, it is not sure that they were raped (2 Samuel 16.22 doesn't seem to suggest that they vehemently opposed the idea).
2. I don't understand why God is blamed for taking the life of a child. Should we blame Him now that no-one lived forever so far?? (and think about the number of deaths so far, with this occasion). It is as if you would build yourself a robot, from your own materials. When you destroy it, who condemns you for that? it fully belongs to you. The same with God and His creation (by the way, consider that people do not cease their existence after death, according to the bible).
3. I'm not sure whether this guy considers God's forgiveness as "that's not a forgiveness" or "an undeserved forgiveness for what he did", but I guess it's the former. Anyway, "forgiveness" does NOT mean "forgiveness from punishment", but forgiveness for what he did. Consider this: if your child did something bad/evil, and you punish him (e.g. don't let him get out a few days or something), does that mean that you did not forgive him of the bad/evil thing he did? If you didn't forgive him of the bad/evil he did then it means that you continue to have something against him.
4. I guess polygamy is considered "evil" now, only because it's not ordinary any more. Anyway, nowadays a rich man has many "whores" (women that mean nothing to him, he has no responsibility to them, and he has them only for his sexual pleasure) while a 2500 years ago rich man had many "wives" (that bore him children that became inheritors of his wealth, he was taking care of them (i.e. of the women) for a lifetime, paying for everything they needed, while they were not supposed to work, but only be loyal and enjoy a prosperous life). I don't see why the modern version is so good and the old version is so bad, really.

RAPE: "7) Rape of Female Captives"
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
Yeah, it's an interesting thing to rape your own wife. Anyway, I wonder if anyone has heard about "arranged marriages" and alike - that may mean that neither the woman wishes that man, nor the man wishes that woman, but still, they're not raping each other.

RAPE: "9) Sex Slaves"
(Exodus 21:7-11)
It's funny that this guy did not complain about a man being forced to mary a woman when he was a slave - specified just above (Exodus 21.3-4). If this (Exodus 21.3-4) is not such a big problem, then I don't see why a woman being forced to marry a man when she was a slave is blatant.

RAPE: "10) God Assists Rape and Plunder"
(Zechariah 14:1-2)
Oh my... what do you imagine to have happened when evil men conquered a settlement 2500 years ago? Do you imagine they started taking care of everyone in there and treating all people nicely? And, if for the evil the Jewish people did, God allowed other evil people to do their evil on them (on the evil Jewish people), is God the evil one?

Also, what do you say: does punishing the evil man with evil (as God cannot punish him with good) make God evil?

This is the end of this series of reply.

[Ryft]

My point is that [God] committing evil is NOT logically impossible in any way ...

Yes it is. Insofar as morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God, evil is any want of conformity to the nature and will of God. Therefore, to say that God can do evil is to utter a meaningless logical contradiction, that God can fail to conform to his own nature and will (i.e., that A can be not-A).