Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 1 – Genocide

Most my life, I, like most people assumed the Bible was a book about love, peace, tolerance and rules for a good life. It was always assumed that if more people took a page out of the Bible the world would be a better place. However, recently I have started to look into the Bible and found a lot of pretty nasty things. So many in fact,  that I can’t fit them into one post so this will have to be a series.

I was shocked and horrified when I found out that the Bible justifies ethnic cleansing and genocide. For example, we all know the story of how Moses helped the Jews escape from Egypt. In order to get their freedom, God kills the firstborn child of every Egyptian (Exodus 12:29-30). That is pure murder. What did the children do to anyone? It’s not as though they were responsible for the enslaving of the Jews. Every Egyptian was punished, even the poor wretches in dungeons who could hardly have been responsible. What if we applied this logic to modern day? What if Lincoln killed the first born of every Southerner in order to free the slaves in America? This is the action of a cruel and brutal murderer of the innocent, not that of a kind and loving God.

However, it gets worse. See the Israelites came to the “promised land” only to find other people were living there. So God told them to drive them out and “destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images.” (Exodus 34:11-4) (So much for respecting other people’s religion.) This is one of the earliest examples of ethnic cleansing, of the murder of another people for the simple reason they belong to another ethnic group. And we are supposed to worship this God?

Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. In fact the Old Testament is full of God commanding the Israelites to attack and destroy different religions and ethnic groups, for petty and often non-existent reasons. Leviticus 26:7-9 for example. 1st Samuel 15:2-3 tells of how God told the Israelites to “go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both men and women, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” This is the complete extermination of another group of people, in other words genocide. This is God commanding that innocent women and babies are to be murdered. Were it to happen today it would be considered a brutal and unjustifiable war crime.

God commanded them to attack the Midianites and “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-8) Now, not only does God command them annihilate another group of people (it is not mentioned what they did to deserve this) but he also gives them to permission to rape children. God is a sick bastard.

That isn’t the only time. On another occasion he tells them to “smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.” (Deuteronomy 20:13-4) However he tells them to reserve special treatment for the tribes that neighbour them. Of these “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorities, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.” (Deuteronomy 20:16-7)

Then there is Noah’s flood (Genesis 7:21-3) where God wipes out all of humanity (bar Noah) because of “sin” and “violence”. So God cures this problem with evil and even more violence. Apparently the complete annihilation of all of humanity is reasonable and we should still worship the God. The more I read about God the more he resembles a cruel and evil dictator, brutally massacring his own people and expecting them to love him for it.

There are literally too many massacres to mention in one article and I could go on all night. For a complete list see of all of God’s killings (they number 135) see http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

They include the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (and the death of every person inside) (Genesis 19:24), the destruction of Jericho (Judges 1:8), the massacre of the Philistines (Samuel 23:2), the genocide of the Gezrites and Amalekites which “left neither man or woman alive” (Samuel 27:8) the killing of 127,000 Syrians because they said the Israelites worshiped a God of the hills but not a God of the valleys (1st Kings 20:28), the murder of every member of the religion of Baal (2nd Kings 10:19-27) killing 120,000 men for not worshipping God (2nd Chronicles 28:6) and killing two thirds of the Moabites and making the rest slaves (2nd Samuel 8:2).

Some might argue that these are old, obscure parts of the Bible that are out dated. If this is so then why are they not simply removed from the Bible? Christians still quote from these books when it suits them. No church has ever denounced or even tried to distance themselves from the Old Testament. Also Jesus agreed with these killings and warned his followers that the same would happen to them if they did not believe. He threatened that the land of the non believers would be turned into another Sodom and Gommorah (in other words annihilated) (Luke 17:26-32) (Matthew 10:14-5)

My greatest fear is that some people might actually believe these terrible stories. Some people might believe that the genocide of another race is acceptable as the Bible condones it. Some people might use the Bible to justify hatred and violence. They might fly a plane into a tower or gun down 77 innocent people and think God approves.

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 1 – Genocide

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 2 – Sexism

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 3 – Homophobia

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 4 – Slavery

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 5 – Racism

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 6 – Anti-Semitism

93 thoughts on “Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 1 – Genocide”

  1. Robert,
    I do not agree with how you are presenting some of this, but let’s just say this is true. Let’s say for arguments sake that God exists and can be described as you do in this post. If God were evil instead of good, vindictive instead of merciful, what do you think our response should be to him? Sincerely curious about what you think…

    1. I would be very interested to hear why you don’t agree with how I present this. Did I make a mistake or do you disagree with my commentary?

      I’ll be honest that is a good question. First of all I don’t believe in God. Second of all, if there was a God I don’t think he would do these things, so it would be the Bible that is wrong. Thirdly if there was a God and he did these things, I would view him as oppressed people view a dictator. With a mixture of hate and fear. Hatred towards his cruelty, but fear that I would be the next victim

      1. Well, I just see your analysis as coming from a different angle than I do, and maybe I’m misunderstanding you. It seems to me that you are listing atrocities from the Bible and almost using that to claim there isn’t a God because God “wouldn’t do this.” To me that can be compared to people who deny the holocaust or any other atrocity. Just because they don’t like what happened, or even genuinely don’t believe it happened, that doesn’t change the fact that it did.

        So, to me you first have to ask yourself if God is real and then if you believe he is real, decide how you will contend with him. I understand you don’t believe in God, but for someone who does like me, I approach the Bible differently. My premise as I approach the Bible is that God does exist. I then read the Bible and have to choose what to do with this God. In my mind people have a few choices. We can ignore him, we can fight against him, or we can accept him. We can also say we believe in God, but that the Bible does not accurately describe him.

        I absolutely agree, with you, that the Bible lists some horrible atrocities. These incidents are very difficult to understand and accept. I actually think that in modern Christianity we’ve embraced this “God is love” mentality and we no longer really understand or accept who God truly is. Instead of acknowledging what the Bible says we make excuses for God when skeptics bring this issue up.

        Sorry for the long response…

    2. the deduction is not that God is evil, God presents 4 holly books, the deduction is obviously that the bible is modified, thus, not fiable. This made me think about the Quran, especially after looking up for the scientific facts that were written in it that were only proved few ages ago. The Tanakh has matching events as well, but it denies the existence of hell and heven which doesnt seem right to me

  2. No, its good to debate these things and its good for me to hear the other side of view.

    Honestly I’m not sure what this article proves regarding the existence of God. My aim was to highlight the contradiction between the God I was brought up believing in who was kind and loving, and the God described in the Bible who seems to kill a lot of people without good cause. Maybe these things did happen and people created the story to justify themselves. Maybe none of it happened or maybe it happened exactly as the Bible says.

    If I did believe in God, I would be in awkward position position because either the Bible is wrong or God is a war criminal.

    I suppose the point of the article is to highlight this contradiction

    1. the most logical option is that the bible is wrong
      because the controversy concerning either god is wrong/exists or not has been settled a while ago to oppose atheistic views.
      (More exactly, the fact that quantum infinity theory has been denied, so the fact that things (earth, galaxies … ) has infinitely always been this way & will always be for infinity means that there were no start point (nor end point), which means a time where a creator AKA God creates the univers & the existence in general. Quantum mechanics proved a while ago that the world knew a creator.
      (Philosophy as well proved that the god is Omniscient Omnipotent & Omnibenevolent to answer the ” God is wrong ” part, The philosophic problem of evil exposes atheism from the point of view that if such good right & powerful god exists then there wouldn’t be so much evil in the world, theistics response that god is omniscient so he’s all knowing & knows about all the evil in the world, and he’s omnipotent so he has the potentiel to abolish it, and he s also ominibenevolent because he only wants good to his people & respects them.
      Philosophy comes here with the Free Will theory, that says that if god abolishes the evil completely & keeps us on the track he knows about & wants, then we re only tools, not free at all, the world would be so robotic.
      So god created goodness, but created evil as well in limited dozes, in order to test our free will ( either it’ll practice goodness or evil ) , & he s capable of that, knows about it & bout the future, but still wants good for us so respects our free will)

      sorry if i couldn’t explain this in lesser words .

  3. The classic Christian response would be that God is SO good that he has to be just and that those populations were doing horrible things like sacrificing their children. Not a very satisfying answer, I know…

    I’ve enjoyed chatting with you about this and I look forward to new posts we can discuss. Keri

    1. before Quran came, people used to sacrifice female borns in excuse that they ll bring along shame to the family so I guess it existed a while before monotheism came.

  4. I also enjoyed discussing this with you. Its rare that you can actually debate something and not just get in an insult contest. I’ll post another blog tomorrow afternoon. Its about another problem I have with the Bible, this time, homophobia.

  5. Robert,

    In this post, you mention you are studying the Bible more. The questions I have are related to your Bible study. Are you simply reading the Bible? Or are you reading intelligent commentaries? Do you think you can pick up the Bible and completely understand it, or are you also trying to learn about the context?

    In addition, what you are critiquing is an extremely literal view of the Bible. And you are taking many stories out of the context of the entire Bible.

    Let me give one example of why context is important. You ask about the slaughter of the firstborn Egyptian children. In the ancient world, the firstborn was the heir. The parents continued to live, so to speak, through the children. So the moral of the story is that God is cutting off the inheritance of the Egyptians. To focus on the children as we would view them within our modern context would be to miss the point of the story.

    I am the first to understand why a modern reader would be horrified by certain stories of the Bible. However, if you are going to choose to reject the Bible, at least reject a contextualized, intelligent reading of it rather than a 21st century American approach to a text from an ancient world.

    1. if you say god was cutting off the inheritance of the Egyptians which is horrid if you ask me, what did the first born of slave girls have to do with it? Did the entire Egyptian population enslave the sons of Israel who by the way we are told had all died?

    2. So what your saying is that you can just pick and choose what is good and bad about the bible. If I or someone else was to ask you if you believed if Jesus really created all that fish and bread from the little bit he had you would most likely say you did believe that Jesus did just that. But when presented with the atrocities of the Old Testament you say that they are “false” or ” to literal a view of a bible”. You can’t just pick and choose.

  6. While I accept your point about pointing things in context, religious people never put their quotes in context. If you ever hear a religious person discuss the Bible all they will do is take a line or two and discuss it. That’s why every line in the Bible is numbered, it’s so that you can quote an individual line.

    Your defense of the slaughter of innocent children is illogical and reprehensible.

    While it’s true these stories should be put in context, they are not by the Church. After all you might disagree with using our morals to judge the Bible (but isnt the Bible supposed to be a source of our morality) but many people take these stories literally. After all the opposition to homosexuality among the religious comes literally from the Bible.

    Even still I have looked into the context of each of the stories above, reading the whole chapter in case I was missing something. I believe each one of them condoenes the elimination of another ethnic group which is the definition of genocide. You may disagree with this interpretation but you have to admit that many people could use it to justify genocide.

    On Bible study, I don’t have the time to read the whole Bible, so I discuss the main points and hopefully raise a few issues not many people have heard of (like some of the many nasty parts).

  7. Robert,
    There are many inconsistencies in what you are saying. For example, you said clearly on my blog that you believe the biblical stories are entirely mythical/unreal/never happened. Yet, you are speaking here as if it is horrifying these things happened. Either they happened or they did not. If they did not, as you propose, then you must figure out why the story is told the way it is. In the case of the Egyptian children, far from “defending their slaughter,” as you say I did, I simply explained to you the meaning behind that, which is not meant to emphasize the children themselves. There is a bigger picture.

    Furthermore, you criticize “religious people” for taking quotes out of the Bible, but you yourself admit at the end of your last reply that “I don’t have the time to read the whole Bible, so I discuss the main points and hopefully raise a few issues not many people have heard of.” So you, too, are cherry-picking your favorite stories or verses–although you do so not to prop up belief in God or the Bible, but the reverse. In reality, you are no different than “religious people” who do not look at the whole picture (and for what it’s worth, I also am critical of people who take verses or even large passages out of context).

    In terms of our discussion, it is unfruitful for me to continue with you if you assume I am like every other “religious person.” You began a discussion with me on my blog, asking me a question. If you want to know what I think, then deal with me specifically, not with “religious people” generally. If you knew me, you would know one of my favorite quotes is from Fr John Romanides, a 20th century scholar, who said: “Authentic Christianity is the cure to the sickness of religion.” So, perhaps, I am not like all “religious people” you have encountered, even though I believe in God. Are you willing to dialogue with me as an individual, or will you continue to make assumptions about what I think or believe based upon your perception of others? One would think a liberal like yourself would be more open-minded.

    I have another question for you: when you speak of “the Church” in your last post, to which church(es) are you referring?

    Finally, your last paragraph reveals what I suspected. Not only have you not read the entire Bible, but you have not read intelligent biblical scholars who can explain the context. And when I speak of context, I am not speaking of the immediate context of a passage, nor even the context of an entire book of the Bible, nor even the context of all passages of the Bible, but the context of post-Babylonian Jewish life, or 1st century Jewish life in the Roman Empire. If you learned about that, much more of the Bible would make sense.

    Again, if you want to criticize the Bible, at least know what you are criticizing. It is evident to me you do not. If you knew about the context of the Bible (per the definition I mentioned above), you would understand what a radical book it was and is, and perhaps you would not be as critical. You can find atheist biblical scholars who, although not accepting the Bible as divinely inspired, at least understand it was (in a positive way) a radical text.

    1. Yes I do not believe the Bible is in anyway true. However most people do and believe it is the “Good Book”. The aim of this article is to challenge this belief and show it is a terrible book.

      Your argument seems to be that unless you have read the entire Bible you cannot comment on it. That is absurd because then 95% of Christians could not call themselves Christians as they have not read the entire Bible. The Bible is one of the longest books, it is also incredibly boring. I honestly don’t have the time or the patience to read the entire thing so I focus on the main stories (just as Christians do).

      By Church, I am referring mainly to the Catholic Church, though to my knowledge the Protestant Churches have only minor differences.

      I am sorry you are offended I lumped in with “religious people”, I didn’t intend that as an insult. I don’t know anything about you so I had to guess based on your name, blog and the context of this debate.

      Speaking of context, I have yet to find anyone who can put the massacre of innocent men, women and children into context for me. The best I have heard is that they were non believers so they were going to hell anyways, and massacring people was common back then. Neither of which I find satisfying. I would like to hear the context you feel I should put these stories into.

      1. Context: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden.

        In all of these cases, presumably well meaning world leaders (Roosevelt, Churchill) signed the death warrants for tens of thousands of civilian innocents, because they believed it was, overall the best possible course of action.

        Most of us debate these dilemmas in school, and learn that they had other casualty estimates saying forcing an earlier surrender would save even more lives. But we don’t really know.

        If you are an omniscient God you must be making the same decisions always. Allow civilisation A to die, so that civilisation B will flourish. Would the world be better without the United States? But the united states could never have been formed without the virtual annihilation of the American Indians. Would you, looking back, trade the existence of the united states for the lives of the Indians who were murdered for failing to give up their land?

        Moreover, the bible is a story of progression. He corrects the Israelites a little at a time. The full context of the new testament cannot be understood without the old testament.

        1. Do you have any idea what you are saying? Hitler used the same argument to defend his extermination of the Jews. He said it was necessary for America to annihilate the Native Americans, likewise it was necessary for Germany to annihilate the Jews. Genocide is always wrong. There is no excuse for mass murder

          1. I am unclear on your philosophical predilections. Most atheists are some variety of consequentialist, evaluating the ethical aspects of a decision through the consequences. It is very possible that Hiroshima saved lives, in total. It is also possible that it did not. If it did save lives, then, by definition, it is ethical.

            The dilemma’s of kill one to save five have a long and storied history in ethics, your assertion that “Mass Murder is always wrong”, translated into the famous train tracks thought experiment, puts you in the position of watching while five people die, rather than changing the points and hence intentionally killing one person. * Many instead think that it is better to switch teh tracks. Scale up the numbers and you have the same dilemma where mass murder can be the best of your possible actions.

            Most modern ethicists would change the tracks. Hence, most modern ethicists thing that genocide can in fact be justified. Of course, the primary counter argument to all types of consequentialism is that we do not generally know the consequences of our actions, but that is not a counter argument that applies to an omniscient being.

            * I have kind of assumed you are familiar with this class of thought experiment.

            1. Ok you seem to be putting a lot of words into my mouth. By your criteria could I defend the mass murder by Hitler and Stalin? You never know what benefits came from them. Back to the point why was it necessary for God/Israelites to murder the first born children? Or exterminate the tribes who were living in Palestine? What greater good was served? Surely God being all-powerful and all-loving could have done it without resorting to genocide?

              1. In order to say that something is `bad’ one must first define an ethical framework. I continue to assume that you are some form of utiltarian/consequentialist, because there is really no other consistent choice for a materialist.

                Given that, it is easy to justify murder. Provided that you know the consequences of ones actions to sufficient accuracy, it is trivial to thought up thought experiments where you kill some people now to save more lives later.

                Of course, for humans, we never know the consequences of our actions with any real degree of accuracy, and this is a major flaw in consequentialism. However, for an omniscient being, it is turned around: How could he fail to commit genocide if it saved lives in the long run?

                Of course, as humans, we are never in a position to say what might otherwise have happened, the world is too complicated, but it is clearly irrational to evaluate the actions that are ascribed to God, as if he were a human with a our limited viewpoint.

                You raise the issue of `why is it necessary’, could an omnipotent God not have done something else. This is a more interesting question. However, this question too is long since answered. Firstly by the observation: it is better to have died young than never to have lived (in a world with an afterlife and a just God this is self-evident). Secondly, you presume that the tribes of Palestine had no choice, that they had done nothing wrong other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, in reality, that is another thing that we cannot know. For all we know they were a bunch of baby eating fanatics.

                The death of the first born of Egypt is not a truly comparable example. The Pharaoh had nine chances to save the first born of Egypt. I do not understand anyone who can read that story and think God was at fault. Pharaoh enslaved an entire race, and when Moses told him that God was determined to free the Israelites, and backed it up with some fairly impressive miracles, starting with the snake and the rod, and culminating in the ten plagues, Pharaoh continued to resist. Still, it makes a pretty object lesson about humanity: there are none so blind as those who will not see. Even after the deaths of the first born, Pharaoh sent his army out to bring them back. Idiot lol.

                Anway, to get back on topic:
                (1) You are defining `bad’ without having first defined, even notionally, your own ethical framework.
                (2) To claim that it is problematic, you must either show that it is problematic within the ethical framework offered by the bible, or criticise the framework of ethics. Neither of which you have done. You have merely said “I have some system of ethics and if I were God I wouldn’t have behaved that way ergo its a problem” which is a non event really. If you start off assuming that the bible is wrong, its easy to show that in fact the bible is wrong.
                (3) These Genocidal parts of the bible are generally regarded as non events, not only by bible scholars, but by serious Christian and atheist thinkers. For the reasons outlined above, and in previous posts. The defence that an omniscient God can foresee the outcome of his actions with sufficient accuracy to know that killing some now will save more later/lead to a better world. Is logically watertight. Its just not a justification that could ever be used by a human, given our limited viewpoint.
                (4) Stop violating Godwin’s law, its very tiresome.

                1. “The death of the first born of Egypt is not a truly comparable example. The Pharaoh had nine chances to save the first born of Egypt. I do not understand anyone who can read that story and think God was at fault.”
                  ‘god’ hardened the Pharaoh’s heart… how do you explain that?

  8. No, my argument is that a person should learn about the context of post-Babylonian Jewish life (for the Old Testament) and 1st century Jewish life (for the New Testament) to understand the biblical context. I am pointing out what you continue to confirm: you are unaware of this. Now, personally, I have no problem with that EXCEPT you are commenting on the Bible as though you are an expert. And you are doing it the same way religious fundamentalists you so strongly criticize do it: without really understanding the entire context of the Bible.

    As for Christians, or even non-Christians, commenting on the Bible, I have no problem with it so long as they defer to people who have studied the entire Bible, as well as the context. Let me give an example. Let’s say you took a business law class in college. Would you then go and challenge a seasoned tax attorney about tax law? Someone who knows the tax code, has been working with it in the real world, and has formal, official training in it is much more likely to understand the tax code’s meaning than someone who took a business law class. You are commenting on the Bible—like many Christians—after having basically taken a business law class on it. You may look impressive when you face irrational people who have made an idol of their own beliefs about God and the Bible, but to someone who has been educated in biblical studies your arguments are not strong.

    In terms of the massacre, you seem intent on proving events in the Bible did not actually happen. So maybe you should start by researching any extra-biblical evidence that the slaughter happened. As for the context of this passage, I personally look at it from the end of the story. The Bible presents God as being extremely graceful to Israel. He favors them among all the nations, according to the text. So the question for Israel is: why do you not behave better than any other nation? Furthermore, since I have been so gracious towards you, why are you not gracious towards others? The challenge (and promise) to Israel at the end of the prophets is to sit down at table (and, thus, in peace) with ALL nations. The promise is that God cares for all nations and ultimately desires for us all to live together peaceably.

    1. You insist on context and so on, question is if this god so favours the sons of Israel, who should be the god of the other nations he is so keen on exterminating? Do you also ask yourself that question?
      If you insist that for one to understand the bible then he ought to be a scholar, then don’t you think the god for whom it is supposed to be his word doesn’t intend to speak to the majority and here we are talking about an omniscient and omnipotent being! Don’t you find that this requirement leaves out a majority of the population.
      Am yet to find a situation where mass murder, or even the murder of one is better for society maybe I haven’t lived long enough.

  9. I can only agree with Robert Nielsen. I cannot accept the genicide and wrath of the Bible’s god. I didn’t learn about these until I read the Bible for myself, instead of listening to the childhood versions of the Bible stories.

  10. Hi Robert Nielsen,

    Your concerns are understandable but they are not based upon the correct information. The tribes and people that were killed where given plenty of time to repent and knew the commandments of God. they were sacrificing children and performing all types of sexual activities that would have infiltrated the Israelites. There is much historical proof about the peoples that were killed where worshipping very sinful gods. Please would you mind reading the following http://wp.me/pVEFC-zQ which explains some of the thinking behind what God did. We as Christians need to believe that God did this for a very good reason as HE is love but He also has to judge sin. We do not always understand why something has been done or how things will happen in the future. But we have to have faith that Jesus, Father God and Holy Spirit are not into wholesale slaughter. God did not have to ensure that the OT accounts of extermination where listed at all, but He did. Why? Hell is a real place and billions of people are going to go there as a real place. God created us and wants a relationship with us if we choose.
    If you would like to discuss this further I am available for any questions.
    Yours In Christ RaymondTheBrave

    1. I am shocked at the callous way in which you defend mass murder. You first argue that the people were a different religion, as though that was a crime deserving death. They were not given any chance to convert, God never appealed to them, rather this was their first contact with the Israelites (who, remember were the chosen people). I don’t know what you are referring to when you mention sexual activities but the claim they burnt their own children is so absurd it smacks of propaganda. Even if this was true how does it justify killing children? In your link you say children can be evil too, a disgraceful claim backed up in the vaguest possible way. You mention Nazi Germany as a time when an entire society was evil. However the Allies did not respond by killing every single German. Are you saying they should have? Germany was a dictatorship which imprisoned all dissent so everyone who opposed the regime had to stay silent even though they were probably a majority.

      Murder is murder no matter who commits it. A massacre ordained by God is no less brutal and evil.

      1. I agree that genocide is horrific, and that the killing of children is absolutely morbid. In addition you defend your ideas quite well and present a very convincing argument. However where you lost me was Nazi Germany. You see claiming the majority of the citizens living in Nazi Germany discented with their dictator and military goverment is at best an assumption if not a blatent lie. There is evidence that even today Neo Nazi movements are not only in effect and terrorizing immigrants, but at an increasing rate, that is not invistigated or condemned by the German government. Population Sample Statistics suggest that modern day Germans sympathize with nazi routes and neo nazi manifestations by a whapping 70 plus percent. So this is not to say that killing all Germans is the solution, but if we where to place these facts in the Bible and then say that god ordained for nazi Germany to be anhilated in order to cut the evil from the route and prevent future persecutions of all peoples nazi Germany contended with and save more people than would be sacrificed due to ethnic cleansing at the hand of a racist nation. If not justifiable would it then be understandable?

        1. “You see claiming the majority of the citizens living in Nazi Germany discented with their dictator and military goverment is at best an assumption if not a blatent lie.”

          All I said was that Nazi Germany was a dictatorship which imprisoned and killed opposition (which it did). Therefore there is little overt evidence of Nazi support.

          “There is evidence that even today Neo Nazi movements are not only in effect and terrorizing immigrants, but at an increasing rate, that is not invistigated or condemned by the German government.”

          The Neo Nazis are an insignificant part of German life and is in no way support or condoned by the German government.

          “Population Sample Statistics suggest that modern day Germans sympathize with nazi routes and neo nazi manifestations by a whapping 70 plus percent.”

          What does that even mean? How would a population survey indicate support for the Nazis? Do you have any sources of evidence for these outrageous claims?

          “So this is not to say that killing all Germans is the solution, but if we where to place these facts in the Bible and then say that god ordained for nazi Germany to be anhilated in order to cut the evil from the route and prevent future persecutions of all peoples nazi Germany contended with and save more people than would be sacrificed due to ethnic cleansing at the hand of a racist nation. ”

          What a load of incoherent ramblings. So we should exterminate 80 million Germans to save the lives of 6 million Jews? Why would genocide to prevent genocide be a good idea?

          1. You have stated in your passages that the Jewish people are the chosen people of Jehova their God. And so they are considered his children. I don’t know if you have children or someone directly under your care but if you do, how many people would you kill if they tried to hurt or kill your children. . Even just one of your children Moreover the Jewish Nation were not the only ones terrorized by Nazi Germany. The German invasion of Western Poland on 1 September 1939 led to the start of the Second World War (WW2). Between 1939 and June 1941 the German army invaded and occupied many countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway and Western Poland. Even if you claim to be a nonbeliever the devotion with which you defend your views indicate a strong belief in something, one might even say you have faith, if not in God, than in yourself. It’s ok to diverge on our opinions Mr. Nielsen, but to say that I am an incoherent rambler is condescending and pompous on your part.

  11. Did God kill them or did they kill themselves by not listening to what he said. The flood came as a result of all the sin in the world at that time. The people took the mickey out of Noah all the time he built it not taking seriously what God had told him to do? Why. Jesus refers to this in the NT.

    1. God never appealed to the whole world, he only spoke to Noah. It is absurd to think that every single person, including children, the sick and elderly were irredemebly evil, especially as none of their crimes are mentioned. The entire world cannot be evil, because every evil deed needs a victim and its hard to argue that victims are evil and deserve death. God killed them, he committed Genocide no matter how you try to twist it.

      1. Dear Robert,

        We seem to be on a different page.
        1. Do you believe in God as outlined in the Bible?
        2. Do you agree that God is omniscient, omnipresent and all powerful?
        3. If we are created by Him then how can we question someone who knows a billion times more than us? Yo can ask God about anything in the Bible and you will find an answer, but your attitude needs to be one of humility and seeking answers.
        4. You are angry with me without even understanding my stance. I used Christian short hand as I thought you would have known the general principles I quoted.
        5. You are also using your own set of principles and applying them to what happened in the Bible.
        6. The time frame in the bible is very long in-between each killing event. Murder is a premeditated event for no just reason. The death penalty is still inforce around the world and even in the USA for this type of evil. Killing is for a just reason. God let the people in the Time of Noah hundreds of years to change their ways.
        7. Please would you read my latest posts on all of these subjects?
        8. God created Adam and Eve and they knew in their hearts (consciousness) what was right and what was wrong. Since God creates all men and women I hope you agree that we all have a conscious. It is this conscious that tells us what is right and wrong. We know it is not right to kill in cold blood. Yes. We know that lying is wrong even children do.
        9. All children that died were not evil. If I gave that impression I and sorry. Any children that had not reached the age of accountability, i.e. decide for them selves to follow a godly life based on what was in their conscious. Generally younger than 11 years old would go to heaven. God is obviously able to determine who person was trying to act in a godly way.
        10. We are spirit, soul and body. Agree?
        11. This is what God said about the people at the time of Noah:-
        Genesis 6:1-22 NKJV Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, (2) that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. (3) And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” (4) There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (5) Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (6) And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (7) So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” (8) But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. (9) This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. (10) And Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (11) The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. (12) So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. (13) And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (14) Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. (15) And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. (16) You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. (17) And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. (18) But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. (19) And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. (20) Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. (21) And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.” (22) Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.

        11. One of the key scriptures is :- Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
        12. At the end of the day you either trust in God or not and believe that He is just, why would He not be?
        13. I like many other Born Again Christians believe that we are in the end times spoken about by Jesus, Jesus is going to come back after many terrible things would have happened to the earth where around 3-4 billion people are going to killed. I am not saying it is going to happen tomorrow but it could be in our lifetime or the next, but the events outlined in Revelations and other Chapters in the Bible point to it happening soon. This is due to the current evil ways of the people of this current day. You can call me mad, but I am not.
        14. The sign of the times are getting worse. I.e. The world is getting morally worse and worse each year.

        I will not answer your other comments until you can read and respond to the above.
        Thanks Raymond

        1. 1. No I don’t believe in God and even if he was real I would not worship him for reasons given in the post (massacre of innocent children)
          2. No I believe all 3 traits are contradictory (see http://wp.me/p2m7ae-2x)
          3. So we must treat God like a dictator that can never be questioned? That’s what I love about atheism, I am free to question anything
          4. My bad
          5. I said the massacre of innocent children was wrong, is that not against every decent person’s principles?
          6. At no point in the story does it say God warned people. Neither would young children have been warned. Not that time in any way mollify the genocide.
          7. I have but unfortunately you do not allow comments, so I cannot properly discuss your points
          8. I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you saying we know right and wrong independently of religion? Didn’t Adam and Eve have to eat the apple of knowledge before they knew the difference between right and wrong?
          9. If the children were not evil then why did God kill them?
          10. Huh? I don’t believe in a soul and spirit is such a vague term that everyone has their own meaning.
          11. As I said before how could the whole world be evil?
          12. Well he kills innocent children so that is one way he would not be just (I don’t think the message is going through)
          13. Seeing as you gave me permission I will you call you mad 🙂
          14. I would personally think we are getting better, but we seem to disagree on a lot.

          As interesting it has been responding to your points, you still haven’t discussed the heart of the matter, that it is wrong to massacre children who have not done anything wrong

      2. Postscript:- Children do kill. This has be shown throughout the centuries. In Africa now their are child soldiers who will kill you just for your mobile phone.
        I have worked in the Middle East and children hate Jews from age 3-4 years old and they cant tell you why. They have been brainwashed by their mother and fathers. They really hate them with vengeance. I have been around the world and come into contact with all sorts of people.

        Extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger
        Two 10 year old murdered a 2 year old boy.
        James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990[1] – 12 February 1993) was a boy from Kirkby, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, when aged two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982).[2][3] Bulger disappeared from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, near Liverpool, while accompanying his mother. His mutilated body was found on a railway line two-and-a-half miles away in Walton, two days after his murder. Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with Bulger’s abduction and murder.
        Thanks Raymond

        1. Does that mean it would be alright to kill them? If I killed every first born Palestinian child would you shrug your shoulders and say they deserved it?

          Yes children do bad things but that is because they do not understand the consequences of their actions. Children are not rational enough to make decisions for themselves, thats why they are treated different

          1. Hi Robert,
            Firstly thanks for coming back with some questions and clarifying what you believe. I question everything as well.
            I really believe in communication in every form and believe that the world is in a poor state due to the lack of communication in all forms, compassion and knowledge. I am not callous or a disgraceful person. I just did not make myself understood when I have answered and made comments for which I apologise. I have 2 children of my own who are 21 and 23 who live in South Africa.
            What I have said concerning people in the past burning their children is true and has been proved by archaeologists.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice Extract below:-
            References in the Tanakh point to an awareness of human sacrifice in the history of ancient Near Eastern practice. The king of Moab gives his firstborn son and heir as a whole burnt offering (olah, as used of the Temple sacrifice).
            Aztec culture
            Archeologists have found remains of 42 children sacrificed to Tlaloc (and a few to Ehécatl, Quetzalcoatl andHuitzilopochtli) in the offerings of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan by the Aztecs of pre-Columbian Mexico.[1]
            Further information: Tlaloc#Rites and rituals
            Inca culture
            The Inca culture sacrificed children in a ritual called capacocha. Their frozen corpses are still being discovered in theSouth American mountaintops. The first of these corpses, a female child who had died from a blow to the skull, was discovered in 1995 by Johan Reinhard.[2] Other methods of sacrifice included strangulation and simply leaving the children, who had been given an intoxicating drink, to lose consciousness in the extreme cold and low-oxygen conditions of the mountaintop, and to die of exposure.
            Moche culture
            The Moche of northern Peru practiced mass sacrifices of men and boys.[3]
            The Mayan civilisation which disappeared long ago for no apparent reason of South America regularly had child sacrifices for hundreds of years.
            Even today in some parts of India babies are dropped http://www.odditycentral.com/news/indias-controversial-baby-dropping-ritual-is-back.html
            In Satanic rituals of today new born babies are killed in private.

            1. To answer your question about God killing children:-
            The following post answers your question the best way that I have come across and adds lots of details to show the Bible fits together http://wp.me/pVEFC-Fa Slaughter of the Canaanites. Also the following basic explanation http://wp.me/pVEFC-zK Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People?
            The problem or concern about what the bible says in a particular passage becomes subjective when not taken in full context as you can see from the above post referring to scripture from at least 2 different places that explain for example the Canaanite killings. The Bible explains itself and therefore we all need to look for explanations in the whole bible to help us understand subjects or events. It also shows how over 26 authors who wrote over 1500 year period can write books that when put together do not negate each other or are ambiguous. Scriptures in the NT help us for example understand the OT.
            1. You stated Didn’t Adam and Eve have to eat the apple of knowledge before they knew the difference between right and wrong? No quite. Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not Knowledge. They were innocent and thus did not know about evil at all. Who would want to know about evil once you knew about it? But man has always had a choice. Adam and Eve only had one law or commandment to keep and they blew just like you and I would.

            The garden in Eden contained every type of tree that was pleasant to look at or produced good food. In the middle of the garden were two special trees. The first tree was the tree of life. The second tree was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam’s job was to take care of the garden that God planted for him.
            Adam was also given a simple law to obey. “You can eat of any tree in the garden, but you cannot eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This shouldn’t have been too hard of a command to keep. After all, the garden was filled with all sorts of fruit trees. A question that comes up is why would God put the tree in the garden if He did not want Adam to eat of its fruits? Wouldn’t it have prevented problems later if God did not put the tree in the garden? Why put the tree right in the middle of the garden and then tell Adam not to eat of its fruit?
            The answer is fairly straight forward. God created man after his own image. One of the things that this implies is that man is given a free choice to decide whether to obey God or not. If man is to be free to make a choice, then there must be something to choose between. Without the existence of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then no choice would have existed for Adam. But notice that something else must also exist for Adam to be able to chose to follow God or to disobey Him. God had to give him a law. Without a law, no choice can exist. Right and wrong always exists, but unless we are made aware of the choice through a law, we cannot be held responsible for keeping or breaking the law. See Paul’s comment on this fact in Romans 5:13. What we call sin is when a law of God is broken (see I John 3:4).
            Unfortunately, there is a side-effect when God tells us that something is wrong to do. We become aware of sin. If God never mentioned that something was sinful, it is possible that we would never have thought of that sin on our own. (See Romans 7:7-12.) Therefore, the very thing that warns us to stay away from sin gives us ideas of sin that we may not have thought of before. Verse 9 of Romans 7 makes an interesting point. When we are young, we are not aware of right and wrong. We do things because our parents say this is what we should do. We avoid doing certain things because if our parents caught us, we would be punished. At some point in our lives, we become aware of God’s laws and understand that certain things are right or wrong regardless of what our parents have told us. As an example, you understand that using God’s name as a curse word is wrong. You are trying to break yourself of that habit, not because you are afraid that your father would wash your mouth out with soap; you avoid cursing because you understand that it is wrong.
            Every child that is born is totally innocent of right and wrong until they mature enough to be aware what is right and wrong on their own (Deuteronomy 1:39). Even though Adam was created as a full-grown man, he had the innocence of a little child. He was unaware of right and wrong on his own.
            Yes, God was aware that if He gave man a choice that man was destined to chose wrongly. That is why He had a rescue plan already in place before He created the world.
            “And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God” (I Peter 1:17-21).
            “To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him” (Ephesians 3:8-12).
            God’s “eternal purpose” doesn’t just refer to an unending future, it also means it stretches back in time beyond what we can fathom. God had this planned out because it accomplishes His goals. People make their choices but God plans out the consequences. “A man’s heart plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps” (Proverbs 16:9).

            My questions:-

            1. The following text extract is from a web page I found while doing some research.
            It is disingenuous and contradictory for one to reject the Bible as the word of God, while attempting to use the Bible to attack the existence and nature of God. Those who reject the Bible are ill equipped to make well-reasoned arguments from it, for they admit that they do not believe its claims to be true. Sceptics and atheists rarely demonstrate the degree of objectivity that is required in order to properly interpret and apply Scripture. Those who take a prejudicial approach to the Scriptures are seldom likely to represent them accurately. Rather than attempting to make rational arguments from a book that the sceptic considers irrational, perhaps the sceptic’s time would be better-spent examining Bible evidences. If evidence for the Bible is lacking or faulty, then let the Bible be rejected. Conversely, if the evidence is sufficient and credible, then let the Bible be embraced. Thus, while it is profitable to discuss the question of God’s rights relating to His treatment of His creatures, such is not the primary discussion. The sceptic’s time should first be devoted to a critical examination of the vast array of internal and external evidences supporting the authenticity of the Bible. Taking the present topic as an example.

            2. It has always amazed me how non-Christians will be upset by the Biblical and Godly events and so called dogma when they do not even believe in a God or know for what we stand. However when the boot is on the other foot I have been told by a Luciferian that I can’t say anything about them as I do not understand for what they stand. When I ask them what do you stand for I can’t get a straight answer? Atheists all have different beliefs except seemingly that God does not exist.

            3. If the Bible and its morals where all removed from the world what would be the overall result from your perspective. The USA was founded over Christian principles and the United Nations keeps many Bible Principles. Where would the moral and ethical principles come from? Would we have a world like China or Russia or something like Africa?

            4. You do not seem to believe that we are spirit beings at all. Thus, that makes us the same as animals as just a mind (brain) and a body. What do you see as the major difference between us and animals for us to act the way we do? If this is the case we should not be murdering them or eating them as we would be then cannibals in our terms. We should not ride them or make them fight and so on.

            The one thing that is needed by every man and women is a little step of faith in order to understand that God is real although unseen but can be felt and loved.
            Please would you reply with any questions and statements? I am sure you will not be happy with some answers and that is to be expected.
            Please try and think about how your upbringing and what you have seen, read and experienced impacts what you believe. So can you see that your stance could be wrong if you learnt and experienced so other way of life.

            Grace to you.
            Raymond Clements

            1. Thanks for the detailed response. The problem with the reports of child sacrifice is that they are impossible to independently verify and could simply be propaganda. For example you cited a Wikipedia site which only used the Bible as a source. It also said that it could have been common among the Israelites (sign of double standards?)

              In response to your questions:
              1. I would disagree. Atheists are no more biased than believers. After all if you view the Bible as perfect, then you are not taking an objective stance and are just as biased as someone who believes it is a work of fiction.
              2. I’m not sure what exactly you are asking here, can you clarify. Atheists do not have a common set of ideas because Atheism is not a belief system but rather the absence of one.
              3. Actually the USA was not founded on Christian principles (but that’s another discussion for another time). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains many rights that are not in the Bible such as freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Morality is separate from religion, for example non-Christians still know the difference between right and wrong. This can be seen in the way Christians ignore the daft parts of the bible such as the ones that say we must stone adulterers and homosexuals to death.
              4. Yes we are animals and like animals we eat other animals. However humans have consciences and intelligence, which is lacking in animals.

              I have no problem with answering these questions or any others you might have. I have seen things from the other side, I was born and raised Catholic and I only became an Atheist 8 months ago. Have you seen things from a different view to the religion you were born with?

              1. Hi Robert,
                Below is an excellent explanation of why many Americans believe that the USA was built on Christian principles.The inherent thinking behind the Constitution is Christian. No it does not mention God or the bible but that was taken as read. The men who put it together did not want to mix religion with politics which is the correct course to take.
                USA founded as a Christian nation
                I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

                Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the “Constitution State” because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: “For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…”

                Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: “…the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen”. Sounds Christian to me.

                Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: “…God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

                John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; “The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were … the general principles of Christianity … I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

                Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: “…Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?” Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an “indissoluble” bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.

                The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a ‘National Denomination” (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: “By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.” Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term “separation of Church and State”) he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.

                Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his “Farewell Address”: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” Sure doesn’t sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.

                John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

                “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.

                This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:

                “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people…This is a Christian nation.” There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a “Christian nation”.

                In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: “in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.’

                It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the “separation of Church and State”, people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.

                It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.

                When we read articles such as “What’s God got to do with it?” (Primack, 5/4) and “The wall between state and church must not be breached” (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.

              2. Dear Robert,
                My about page explains most of my background http://raymondjclements.wordpress.com/about/
                I was not raised in a religious home at home. No bibles or religious stuff. Between the ages of 7-18 I attended 17 different schools in 3 different continents in 3 different countries. My brother died at 26 due to heart failure as he was born with congenital heart disease and was wheel chair bound all of his life. He was in pain all his life and our families focus was on him. I loved him dearly. His brain was fine but his body was in very bad shape.
                Mt family was very poor and sometimes we did not enough to eat. We were also just above the poverty line all my family life. I am not complaining and love my parents. They tried the best they could. My upbringing however did help me understand many things and that you can overcome most things in life.
                At the moment I have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) was I worked too hard for too long and had not dealt with some of my misunderstanding about people and life as whole. My divorce in 1995 was very difficult as my two children were only 3 and 5.
                I have not worked for over 6 years, five of these years being spent in South Africa using money that my wife and I had saved and liquidated assets. My company accepted some responsibility for my state of health and I agreed to medical redundancy.
                So I hope you can start to see that I have been through a lot in my life and I do not blame God at all. People will let you down but God has provided in our lives all the time. I many stories (testimonies) of how only God could have supplied our needs.
                Your friend

              3. Hi Robert,

                On the question of Catholicism, I honestly believe that there are many sincere Catholics including some of leadership however they are sincerely wrong in their presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There are too many traditions of men that have been added to the religion over the centuries. Many of the changes were to get power, money and lands. Did you read my post by the ex-Catholic nun which explains some of the issues.
                Catholicism is seen as a religion by most Born Again, Bible believing Christians as it does not preach and teach the Bible but their own opinions and rhetoric. Religion we say is equal to death spiritually as trying to reach someone who is a Catholic is very difficult as they think they are Christians and they are not. It is easier to talk to a prostitute or some in jail than a Catholic. Religion kills people faith and spirits become dulled down. Many people who think they are going to heaven are not.
                On that subject, we only live for about 80-100 years on this earth and then die. Do you think that when you die that is the end of your life? What if there is something after physical death and that where that where you stand after death depends on what you do here. Eternity is a long time for a spiritual body to live. We gain so much knowledge in our lifetime and for it all to be wasted when you die does not make sense.
                Hell, I believe is a real place with real pain and do not want anyone to end up there. I am not saying you will be going there. I am making a general statement.
                The only sin that will send anyone to hell is not believing that Jesus is the Son of God and not confessing with their mouths that they believe that He died on the cross and shed His blood to atone for all your sins, died and rose again on the third day and was resurrected with a new body and is seated in heaven at the right hand of our Father God.
                By the way, Sin is not adhering to God commandments. The two that some up them all is 1. Love the Lord your God with all you heart and your entire mind. 2. Love your neighbour as yourself. If you love your neighbour you will not kill, cheat on him with his wife or steal from him etc. If you love God you will want to do what pleases Him, just like you would your earthly father.
                Unlike other religion we do not have lots of do’s and dont’s.
                Best wishes Raymond

              4. Hi Robert, I have just realised something. I have been a Christian for 28 years now and so do not remember my atheist days. I expect people to have some beliefs, which is wrong. So my questions about what you believe and your standards will not make sense and do not apply. So I apologise for my questions in this area.
                Sorry Raymond

              5. Hi Robert,

                Concerning the question of the Trinity :-
                Objections to the Trinity answered
                The Word Trinity is not in the Bible.
                Just because the word “trinity” is not in the Bible doesn’t mean that the concept is not taught. The word “monotheism” is not in the Bible, yet the Bible teaches it (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). Therefore, your criticism is invalid.
                The Trinity is illogical
                What law of logic is it that the doctrine of the Trinity violates? If you cannot tell me, then your statement is meaningless. Saying it is illogical does not mean it is.
                The Trinity is pagan
                Saying it is pagan means nothing. The question is whether or not it is biblical. Are there verses that show that the F., S., & H.S. are each God, each indwell, each have a will, each loves, etc.? Yes there are.
                The F., S., & H.S. are each called God (F., Phil. 1:2), (S., John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), (H.S., Acts 5:3-4). Each has a will (F., Luke 22:42), (S., Luke 22:42), H.S., (1 Cor. 12:11). Each is all knowing (F., 1 John 3:20), (S., John 16:30; 21:17), (H.S., 1 Cor. 2:10-11), etc.
                Regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each has a will (F., Luke 22:42), (S., Luke 22:42), H.S., (1 Cor. 12:11). Each speaks (F., Matt. 3:17), (S., Luke 5:20., (HS., Acts 8:29; 13:2).
                The Trinity came from pagan trinities.
                There are no trinities in pagan theology. There are triads (three gods), but no trinities (one God in three persons). Therefore, your statement is inaccurate.
                The Bible does not say that God is three who’s and one what
                That is correct. But the Trinity is a doctrine arrived at systematically (by looking at the whole of scripture), not by looking at a single verse. Therefore, your complaint is misdirected and shows you don’t understand the Trinity.
                Show me one verse in the Bible that says that God is three persons.
                The Trinity doctrine is arrived at systematically (by looking at the whole of scripture), not by looking at a single verse. Therefore, you won’t see a single verse that says it. Also, this demonstrates that you don’t understand the Trinity, otherwise you would not have asked that question.

              1. Hi Robert,

                I think you have misunderstood what I was asking. The document are questions to ask an atheist as your stance is that there is no God and thus Jesus. So I would like to know your answers to the questions posed. I know what most other “religions” believe as they have a stated moral belief system which they try to adhere. I do not understand your way of living. What rules and expectations do to have concerning other people? What can I expect from you? Can I trust you? Will you lie all the time? Will you do anything for your progress and self interests?
                Please do not answer my questions with questions and duck many of the questions like you have in the past. I would have been respectful to have told me what you agreed with or at least accepted as an answer to your question.
                I do not need to defend my Christian beliefs or that Jesus is my lord and Saviour. Jesus demonstrated God on earth and what type of person He is. God is more than able to defend Himself. Best Wishes Raymond

                1. “Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.”

                  It says more about you than me, that you think that without God to punish you, you would have no reason to be a good person. The whole point of morality is that you do the right thing regardless of reward. Saying I only act good because I want eternal reward, isn’t good, its nothing more than sucking up

                  1. Robert, I did what was right before I was a Christian. All people know I believe due to our conscious. Where did this conscious come from as it is built in everyone in the world. It is changed and dumbed down by happens from the time we are born. Tribesmen in Borneo are cannibals and head hunters and this is instilled from birth. Religion is not what I am referring to in my way of life. I live the way I do as I love God and what to grow to be a better person. Jesus never taught about religion or what it stands for today. Religion mainly teaches what men believe or want to promote. They do not teach what Jesus said and what God wants for us. Christianity is about a living God not a dead one. I do not live by what people tell me to do but what s revealed in the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I do not do things that are wrong just because a man or woman in leadership tells me to. We all have a choice. In Northern Ireland religion was used as a reason for rivalry and a political football to stay British or stay Irish. I.e. Protestants and Catholics which comes from a historical event in some way when Henry VIII created the Protestant church as separate from Catholicism so he could divorce his then wife for another woman.
                    Many things have been done in a religions name and that is not the reason. It is normally money, power and land with a bit of paranoia or madness thrown in,. This has nothing to do with Christianity. The word Christian means follower of Christ. I have a post called “Who is a Christian” which explains some misconceptions about what all the people means seem to mean. http://wp.me/pVEFC-jh ..

          2. Hi Robert,

            Please can you read the following articles especially the first one which is written by an ex-Catholic nun about the Catholic Church which is not Christian at all, although the world at large (non-believers) believe it is the main Christian church in the world and has represented Christ for nearly 1900 years. It is worse than the Pharisees in Jesus’s time. It is a cult with Mary as a Goddess who is worshipped. Over 1 Billion Catholic church members currently do not know God or even understand what the Bible says.
            Mary Worship By The Catholic Church? http://wp.me/pVEFC-7B
            Roman Catholic Church and Human Traditions http://wp.me/pVEFC-6I
            The Bible Verses of Catholic Tradition http://wp.me/pVEFC-6I
            Mary Protectress, Mother, Goddess and Saint http://wp.me/pVEFC-a0

            Thanks Raymond
            PS Many of the established denominations do not teach biblical principles.

            1. As a former Catholic I can say that although she plays a bigger role than in Protestant churches, it is a gross exaggeration to say she’s a goddess. Catholicism (for all its faults) is still Christian, in fact I would go as far as to say it has so many faults there is no need to make any up.

              1. Hi Robert,
                The comment about Mary is because there are sculptures/statues of Mary in every church and even in many homes. These they kiss and touch etc. and pray to her. They say “Hail Mary” even though she is dead. This from a bible perspective and based upon historic evidence is called a Goddess as they think she can do something for them and she has some sort of power.
                On the subject of morality I do not get it from the bible but it re-enforces what the basics in our heart and to help everyone remember and agree on what is right and what is wrong otherwise we would have anarchy with everyone having their own opinions on what is moral and ethical which has already taken hold in the world today.
                I Hope you find peace and joy in your journey and please remember God is not your enemy and loves (agape) you.

                Best Regards

                1. RTB, you are committing a logical fallacy here, no true scotsman fallacy, a christian is anyone who believes that Jesus is the son of god, that he died on the cross and that he now sits on the throne with god, the rest are details. In fact what you say of the catholic church, its adherents would say pretty much about protestants and protestants say the same about fellow protestants.
                  If the bible reinforces your morality, would you stone your son for disobedience or kill your wife for suggesting you worship a different god? Just curious

                  1. Dear Makagutu, The short answer is no. However I do not understand the comments about the Catholic church. Please could you give me some more details about the post. I agree that each denomination makes negatives comments about the other, however denominations are not the church of Jesus. The church is made of living stones that declare Jesus as Lord and Saviour. The denominations do not always preach the full gospel. Warm Wishes RaymondTheBrave

                    1. I gather from your comments, correct me if am wrong, that you think Catholics are not true christians-whatever that means- and I asked if what I said about christians is true. I needed to add that a christian also has to believe that the bible is the inspired word of god, tell me where am wrong. Tell me, I have always been told the church is the people who make such claims about Jesus, so why do you disqualify catholics from the above standard?

                  2. Dear Makagutu,
                    I am sure that the Catholic Church has some good Bishops and other leaders. However the Catholic church is not based upon a Biblical model for reaching the whole world for Jesus. They have many rules and regulations that are not biblical. Please read the following articles which will help explain some of the details. The first article is by a Catholic Nun which is very interesting.
                    I have no doubt that there are Born Again Catholics but there will be no spiritual growth as the priests will not teach the whole Gospel. The catechism has taken over from the Bible. Mary is a Goddess which is wrong.


                    Blessings and Grace RaymondTheBrave

                    1. As a former Catholic I can assure that Mary isn’t a Goddess (it feels weird defending the Catholic Church). She is praised more than in Protestant churches but is essentially treated like saint. While the Catholic Church has some unbiblical rules, so does every Church. This is mainly due to the contradictory nature of the Bible. Take the debate over salvation for example. Lutherans believe faith alone will save you, while Catholics believe faith and good works, while Calvinists believe in predestination and then there are the Born Again Christians to name but a few. All groups have Bible quotes to support themselves and each claim the other is unbiblical.

  12. Hi Robert,
    Thanks for your reply. I do not want to get into an argument that offends you about Catholicism. The articles I listed explained in detail what the issue behind Mary for example. Mary has no major part in the Bible accept carrying Jesus. There are many Idols of Mary in every Catholic church and she is prayed to and kissed etc. Mary has no divine power or status at all. Praying or bowing down to a sculpture of any kind is called idol worship as described in the Old Testament and the NT. God has said that no other God or Goddess must be worship especially since they are dead and cannot answer your prayers etc. Since Mary is a female she is called a Goddess when you pray, bow down or touch her in any way expecting something to happen. Saying Hail Mary is a form of worship. Why are you hailing Mary since she is dead and not a deity according to the bible. I hope you see my point. It is explained in more detail in the articles that I attached to my above comment, please would you do me the honour of reading them. I understand that this goes against everything that you have been taught and is hard to get your head around.. Pope John ii said the following prayer which according to the bible is blasphemous He said ” THE POPE ASKED HER AMONG OTHER THINGS TO “BE OUR GUIDE ALONG THE PATHS OF THE WORLD.” she is dead and is not a god so how can she answer his prayer. http://www.piercedhearts.org/jpii/prayers/his_prayers.htm
    Mary had other children at least 3 boys. There are many many things that the Catholic Church practices which is not in line with the bible at all. E.g. Water baptism cannot be carried out on a baby as water baptism in the bible is done as a sign to the world what has taken place inwardly in a believer in Jesus Christ as they have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and repented of their sin all with our mouths. A baby cannot do this. There is no scripture about baptising babies.
    Your comment about other denominations is not pertinent to our discussion I would suggest. If you have any specific examples of the churches disagreeing on a Biblical subject then let me know.

    Love and warm wishes RaymondTheBrave

  13. “My greatest fear is that some people might actually believe these terrible stories. ”
    Came across your blog. Can’t remember from where.

    Smile…welcome to the world of the religious two-step, Robert. Although by now you should be an “old Hand’.

    Arguing these points with believers is a bit like pissing in the wind I’m afraid.
    There is an idiot mentality here that illustrates the level of insidious inculcation adherents of the bible have suffered.
    But at least you are educating yourself, which is great.
    It will be an interesting journey.
    You mention the Exodus.
    You might like to dig up pieces by notable Israeli archaeologists, Israel Finklestein and Professor Ze’ev Herzog. The thesis, Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho is excellent
    Have fun!

  14. Wow! Fair play to you Robert for tackling the Bible. I totally agree with your point of view. I too have lots of questions about it. And it freaks me out when I see/hear people say that God is good and that the Bible should be a tool to live your life by. Er… excuse me? The first few pages already contradict what was written on the first pages; then it states that indeed murder, rape, torment, fires and lots more evil should happen to justify yourself. Pppftt… that is scary and what is even more scary, people like for example those living in the Bible belt in the US are so into their creationism they cannot understand that ape-like creatures evolved into humans yet they are willing to believe that a rib created a woman? Eh?

    Also, if you follow the Bible you find out that Jesus was the son of a virgin and he was also his father and his son. He was born in Bethlehem but was from Nazareth yet he spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew. The devil is an angel and also a snake that talks. There is only one God yet they are three: the father, the son and the holy ghost. Wine is blood and bread is flesh. And the list goes on. The Bible is compiled about 400 years after Christ lived and those compiling it made sure most women were scrapped and if they were still in it, they were bad, bad women. Compiled by a Roman after a Roman decided that the Jews had to pick a Jew to be crucified and the first Roman became a Christian. Bloody hell, does anyone really believe all this?

    I once tried reading the Bible as a ‘book’ instead of a bible. Needless to say after only a few pages I thought that this was not going to work because it keeps on contradicting what was previously written. So I tried reading the Bible as Christians and Catholics do. Still didn’t work for me because I’ve a very critical mind and I absolutely believe in science and not creationism. Claiming planet Earth is only 6000 years old if you follow what’s written in it, that is just pure stupidity. How can people not believe in science when the world is full of facts, artifacts, geology and history claiming that planet Earth is about 4 billion years old. Me being interested in psychology, I always wonder why people refuse to accept those facts and why are so so intent in claiming creationism is fact and not science. Are people really that poor in their intelligence or understanding that they blindly follow a book that is full of lies, deceit, murder, rape and horrific facts and they claim that the Bible teaches them to be loving and accepting and whatnot while that book portrays just the opposite of it?

    Sorry for the very open questions/remarks but sometimes I lose my patience with people who just absolutely believe that God is good and that the Bible is the only book that teaches how to live well. Well… hhmm… that just raises my eyebrows all the way over to my neck! 😀

    1. No offense but that article is completely deplorable. The only defence offered is “Well, it was that many children that were cruelly murdered” as if that was an excuse. That author then uses completely spurious reasoning and wishful thinking to play down God justified slaughter. It just goes to show that some people will justify just about anything.

      Also the pretence that all Egyptians were genocidal murders and it was therefore alright to murder their children is utter BS.

  15. Your series on “terrible parts of the bible” reminds me of the dread and fear I used to feel as an altar boy before mass, in the playground before the horror of my Catholic grammar school, St Philip’s began it’s daily torture. The sickly smell of incense inside Birmingham Oratory as beautiful music combined with hideous tales of genocide, sexism, homophobia, slavery, racism and anti-semitism.

    The only thing I’d add is speciesism, as it’s the Carnism from Biblical Economics that’s leading to the mass extermination of anything other than ruminant food animals. Dominion.

    There’s transphobia all over the place as well. In fact, it’s hard to think of a human dysfunction that isn’t paraded as a strenght and virtue. I guess there’s at least some toleration of mental illness, given the psychotic ravings of The Book of Daniel and The Book of Revelation.

    In fact, nearly every book I can recall ( I won’t sully my mind with that cogno-porn again) is written by someone who, if alive today, would probably be sectioned and forced to take Olanzapine or another atypical anti-psychotic whilst their threat to public safety can be assessed. Yet, shock-jocks and fundo preachers world-wide hide their sociopathy behind a cloak of quotes from this Atrocity Exhibition.

    Robert, thanks for doing the shovel work on this so I don’t have to. I know Dawkins debunked it all, but this is very elegant writing. I’m looking forward to devouring the archive of your blog. No wonder you’ve won accolades for your writing.

    Yours, in jubilo, “Cardinal Snowden”

  16. despite all these filthy and horrific contents of the bible christians and jews have the gut of accusing islam of promoting violence in the form of jihad which they wrongly interpret as holy war. even if we take jihad to mean war, it is not aimed at annihilating non-believers including women, babies,infants and old as it is the case in bible command for genocide. jihad war is waged against combatants of either agressors or those who refuse any options of either joining islam or agreeing to be under islamic leadership as dhimmis(protected) and pay jizya(levy for protection). sharia provides an exception where there is peace treaty with a non muslim nation for each to be independant and allies.also where the combatant agree to ceasefire hostility is automatically halted and peace treaty is negotiated . but bible says kill all non believers including women children and old with exception of virgin girls to be taken for sex

  17. I just read all your religion blog posts. You have such an interesting view on everything. I love reading them 🙂 I think you’ve converted me from agnostic to atheist. Ive also wanted to start looking into this Hitchens guy you always talk about. I never knew about the ” Holy trinity” of atheists as you said 😛 So I guess I’m going to start researching more

    1. Glad you like them, its great to hear I’m having such an effect, most of the time I don’t know how people are reacting. I put a fair amount of work into my posts so I try to keep it interesting. I’d highly recommend watching some videos of Christopher Hitchens, he’s a an amazing debator and one of the most interesting people I’ve heard. His books are great too.

  18. Most “educated” people who are religious will always use the argument of “context”, when referring to every violent or contradictory statements in the Bible or whatever holy book. But when you mention “context” you are already establishing subjectivity. And subjectivity is pretty much defined by one’s own tastes, wishes, prejudices, personal experiences, etc. So it’s like, what would you think if you read something like “kill those motherfuckers” or “I’m going to murder this bitch”? Maybe I am a very passionate football fan and when I say “kill those mothefuckers” I just meant “play the game with all your effort and score a great amount of points”, and the same with the other sentence (if it’s a one on one player game…). Or maybe I just said “i’m going to murder this bitch” meaning I would take a woman to court, or maybe I just meant I was angry, but would not actually do anything. So the thing is, if you are not taking something literally, and you have to contextualize it so that the literal meaning is not actually the real meaning of the sentence, then pretty much the sentence mean NOTHING and can mean ANYTHING. If the context is not very well defined and made clear, any sentence can mean whatever. And that’s why the Bible “works”, because anyone creates their own context. So you have the christians who engage in promiscuos group sex, and who think any sexual reference in the Bible is not to be taken literally, and the people who take them literally and think anyone who is does not marry while a virgin is doomed. You have the people who believe all the wrathful words in the Bible are just figurative speeches, and those who take it literally and go on killing sprees of infidels. There is NOWHERE in the Bible indications of “this is to be taken literally, but this is only an analogy”. It’s always up to PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, personal preference, TASTE, whether to consider something literally or as an analogy to whatever else… And that’s why discussions about the Bible are endless, because EVERY believer is choosing and picking whatever suits their needs, puting it “in context”.

  19. Incredibly well done. Take a bow. This was very well done. You put it in black and white and really strikes deep. There is no justifying all this mayhem as being ultra holy and “good” folk. hahahah Love and peace to you. Go on a sacred humanity push. Religious and atheists could at last have a common thread to think about. That would separate the true hearts from the cruel heart and mind. Too many deeeeep thinkers and not enough clear thinkers. Your message was clear. Out of the Horses mouth. See the capital H? hahahah Their sacred Horse indeed. A trojan horse is in the cities of the nations and it’s a nasty horse. They coincidentally pray to the same angry god you wrote about. How pertinent in our day and time. love x 100000 to ya.

  20. “My greatest fear is that some people might actually believe these terrible stories. Some people might believe that the genocide of another race is acceptable as the Bible condones it. Some people might use the Bible to justify hatred and violence. They might fly a plane into a tower or gun down 77 innocent people and think God approves.”

    The Jews?

  21. “In the neighborhood lived a famous dervish who passed for the best philosopher in Turkey; they went to consult him: Pangloss, who was their spokesman, addressed him thus:

    “Master, we come to entreat you to tell us why so strange an animal as man has been formed?”

    “Why do you trouble your head about it?” said the dervish; “is it any business of yours?”

    “But, Reverend Father,” said Candide, “there is a horrible deal of evil on the earth.”

    “What signifies it,” said the dervish, “whether there is evil or good? When His Highness sends a ship to Egypt does he trouble his head whether the rats in the vessel are at their ease or not?”

    “What must then be done?” said Pangloss.

    “Be silent,” answered the dervish.

    “I flattered myself,” replied Pangloss, “to have reasoned a little with you on the causes and effects, on the best of possible worlds, the origin of evil, the nature of the soul, and a pre-established harmony.”

    At these words the dervish shut the door in their faces.”

  22. Has it crossed your mind that for the Jews (and only for them) this “God” is a good one? It is the national god of the race of the Jews. Their protector.

    When Christian nations fight each other like in WWI&II their soldiers pray to God in time of hardship or before a battle.

    But isn’t this contradictory? What God has to do with all these petty wars? And why God would side with a nation against another?

    But Jews do not contradict themselves when they pray to their Jewish god for victory.

    Of course, whether it is reasonable to think that the Jewish god is a pertinent image of what non-Jews have in mind when they think of God is another matter.

    Look what Schopenhauer had to say:

    “While all other religions endeavour to explain to the people by symbols the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations.[56]”

    1. yup and Christianity as an extension of the Jewish belief system has extended that war cry to the world. Not so much with stakes, chopping blocks and nooses these days.

      Christianity instead has the most extreme levels of violence, bloodshed and torture imaginable.. it only has someone else doing it for them while they sit by and cheer.

      The hope of every Christian is to see Jesus return and kill literally 90% of the population, men women and children… then resurrect them all and throw them into an eternal pit of fire where they will be tortured for all eternity with no relief or opportunity for escape.

      This… somehow…. is the greatest story of love that could ever be imagined. Its totally and completely SICK.

  23. Go to your search engine and type in ” the ancient Hebrew God of War “. This could explain a lot. I was a strong evangelical Christian. I was even a beacon in a Southern Baptist church. I left not because of a non-belief in God, but because of a series of lies and misrepresentations that came straight from the pulpit. Not only that, but after much study, I found the Bible to be nowhere near 100 percent accurate, 100 percent true, and 100 percent correct. It is the height of arrogance to teach that. To believe what a fundamentalist Christian teaches, it is absolutely necessary for you to stop thinking. To the evangelical church, thinking about anything but what they teach is a great sin. Having said that I do believe in a Supreme Being. Simply because you cam’t get something from nothing. I have searched deeply for something other than a scientist”s opinion that you can, but have found nothing. As a matter of fact, I found much more evidence that the universe is unnatural.

  24. It’s interesting to see so many different perspectives here and even though I admit I haven’t read them all, I’m going to approach the discussion from a Biblically born-again child of God perspective.
    Saying this I acknowledge there are non-essential areas that TRUE Christians can be TRUE Christians yet differ on some non essential doctrines like old earth and young earth creation. However, there are areas that are ESSENTIALLY to be believed in order be TRULY a CHILD OF GOD, first accepting the fact of the existence of the God of the WHOLE Holy Bible.
    Since the topic is about what has been labelled GENOCIDE HERE. I’m going to specifically point to

    1 Sam 15:2-3
    2 This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt.

    3 Now go and completely destroy the ENTIRE Amalekite nation—MEN, WOMEN, CHILDREN, BABIES,, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys.”

    If you first look at WHO is giving the DIRECTIVES here we should see THAT IS GOD giving the DIRECTIVES to King Saul, through GOD’S PROPHET SAMUEL. Now VICTORY here is dependant on King Saul obeying EXACTLY what God has DIRECTED and when you get down to verse 8 you can see that King Saul DIDN’T OBEY what God had SPECIFICALLY COMMANDED for GOD had a reason for GOOD to give such a command.

    The problem is in the PERSPECTIVE from which we view GOD’S DEALINGS. It is NOT with God Himself.

  25. To me it is quite simple. We should take the capital G out and call him a god – there were other gods around but the OT god wanted to be supreme hence eliminating the others. These gods were superior beings that wanted power. Skeletons have been uncovered of giants and we littler humans would have been in fear of them with just cause. You just cannot argue a case for a god of love that perpetuates murder and fear, it just doesn’t fit and we were created with minds and brains to think, not abdicate that thinking. There were kinder gods who wanted to assist and I believe these were merged under one personality in the bible creating the inconsistencies we find. Hence there are beautiful and wise parts in this book together with cruel and unjustifiable parts. A god that is needy, neurotic, jealous, vengeful and violent has created this image of hell and damnation as we consider the bible and shudder. We were created by a much much higher consciousness that far exceeds the rankings and ravings of a physically advanced being and race of beings. Thankfully he/they don’t appear to be around now but we were given a bloody and unforgiving example that we are still following with our intolerance and judgements. We have been well taught and brainwashed and we will come into our own as good human beings when we shrug this off.

  26. What you neglected to mention is that God gave warning to people to change their ways before he enacted his punishment. If He was truely as cruel and evil as you suggest or believe He would not have done so. The Egyptians had seen the full power of God and even after a warning was given continued to prevent the Israelites from leaving. All the suffering could well have been avoided had Pharaoh heeded the warnings. It is clear and attempt is made to avoid such an disastrous event. It is often the case in the Old Testament for instance Jonah and the city of Nineveh. The people of the city avoided destruction and Gods judgment by repenting of their evils. Cities like Sodom and Gomorrah had the same opportunity but decided to ignore Gods warnings through His prophets. The same applies to the land of Israel. God had sent prophets among the people warning them but they did not heed the warning. all that sorrow and Gods judgment could have been avoided. With the flood it was the same, the pattern repeating itself from generation to generation. His judgments might seem harsh to modern man but they served a clear purpose, to actually save people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: