Saturday, September 6, 2014

My Last Reply to False Accusations and Unscientific Statements


Whether you want to believe in the development of nerves for pleasure, pain, etc. and for those to be naturally selected for better survival and reproductive rates doesn't affect its being a fact.  It makes sense for such things to develop and be naturally selected.  There is no shortage of instances in our time that big changes in evolution have developed more rapidly than usual (though in general, there are small changes over time, which in a longer time span add up to big changes).  There have been plenty of observations of not only helpful mutations, but there have been instances of completely new proteins being developed, species evolving to live in completely different environmental conditions and digesting completely different foods, speciation (evolution of new species that cannot reproduce with the species it evolved from), and development of completely new organs, as well as great changes to organs.

Did the Italian wall lizard (Podarcis sicula) "think" about developing an entire new organ, a cecal valve, so that it could properly digest its new diet on a different island where scientists planted them?  No more than a mammal thought about developing pleasure sensors along the penis/clitoris (same thing in the two different sexes, by the way, as I mentioned before, I read all about this in The Story of V three years ago).  Do bacteria think about evolving so that they can resist toxins meant to kill them?  Did Africans use their brains to think about how they'd like to transform their red blood cells into a sickle-shape in order to resist malaria?  After all, if an African (or African-American) receives two alleles for sickle cell they could die, but if they receive one, they enjoy some resistance to malaria. 

Most humans are still lactose intolerant, to different degrees.  Only a minority of humans are completely lactose tolerant, and it's due to a mutation.  Clearly humans didn't always drink another animal's milk, and it's taking a long time for very many people to evolve complete lactose tolerance.

Did the crickets on Kauai think to themselves, "We need to change our wings," when the flesh-eating parasitoid maggots started eating them from the inside out, because of flies laying their eggs on them?  The flies track the male crickets down from their mating noise.  The males with mutant wings (which were therefore mute) then became populous, and the females on that island starting breeding without approving a courtship song much more than females on the nearby islands where the flies didn't exist.  All this happened very quickly, all observed by scientists. 

Things can be sped up even more by human intervention.  Broccoli, kale, brussels sprouts, cabbage, kohlrabi, and cauliflower all were cultivated from wild mustard.  These plants look extremely different, but by selecting for certain traits, people were able to cultivate them all in a short period of time.

 Then you've got creationists saying opposite things about fossils like Ichthyostega and Acanthostega in order to try to deny its evolution, transitioning from water to land.  Andrew Snelling said it was clear such "amphibians" clearly walked on land with load-bearing legs.  Paul Garner said the "fore and hind limbs" in such species were "difficult to interpret as load-bearing" and "appear to be designed for swimming." 

A scientist recently raised young bichir fish (which have both lungs and gills) in a terrarium and some to compare in an aquarium.  After eight months not only did the land-raised ones walk better, not slip, and held their fins closer to their bodies, their bone structure had actually changed.  I'd be interested to see several generations to see how the DNA changes so that we can actually see the transformation of those fin limbs into bony leg limbs, just as the fossil record shows.

We all just watched a plant documentary that I've had on my watch list for a long time.  I can't recall the name, but it was shown by PBS and discussed plant communication.  Very fascinating documentary.  When discussing the wild tobacco plant, a scientist working in the field noticed a vast number of caterpillars eating the plants and that a few of the plants had their flowers openly bloomed in the day hours.  Normally they bloom at night to let the hawk moths drink the nectar and spread their pollen for them, but those same moths lay eggs on the plants, which hatch the caterpillars.  So a few plants started blooming during the day, and not only that, but the actual shape of the blossoms began to change, and the perfume volatility went down.  The plants started attracting hummingbirds (and as you may insects and hummingbirds are attracted to different plants based on flower shape, color, etc.).  Which tobacco plants do you think would survive better afterward?  The hummingbirds aren't going to lay caterpillar eggs, so those plants would survive better in order to reproduce better.  They'd be naturally selected to go on better, because of the changes they made.  Did the plants "think" about the changes it wanted to make? 

Even if a god is causing evolution (and many, many Christians and other religious believers are now believing this way, based on the evidence of evolution), you still are left with the question of how the god(s) got here.  They'd have had to evolve from a lower form on another planet.  The biggest argument any creationist makes is the low probability of chemicals mixing the right way to make the first simple life form, but they are only left to explain how a far more complex entity came to be, which is far, far more improbable. 

If all these new creations can generate in a species and possibly even change species in order to improve survival and reproductive success, then why can't the same thing happen in the instance of pleasure receptors in the mammalian reproductive system?  Why can't a pain receptor be generated and then subsequently selected as superior when it clearly improves survival and reproduction by causing an organism to avoid things that damage it?  If such things can be OBSERVED by scientists, as I've listed just a few examples, why would pleasure receptors in a clitoris be any different? 


As for humans wiping their butts, it's ironic you bring that up.  I've pointed out to my children several times over the years when they try to eat food without a utensil or fail to wash their hands when they should, that they should be thankful that they're advanced enough and are enabled to properly wash their hands and bodies and stay in an advanced house out of the elements, etc.  I've told them that the animals in the wild aren't able to use warm water and soap or build as advanced structures and don't have as advanced hands so that they can use washcloths and water.  Instead they've got to lick their genitals and anuses and those of their young offspring.  They must bite at fleas, lick their fur, and take shelter in caves or dens.  It's odd, though, that I've had the thankful point-of-view that we are advanced enough to do a better job than animals, but you seem to think the animals are better off, judging by the way you worded your statement.  Is that what you truly meant? You said that humans "have to" wipe, as if we are actually worse off than the animals.  Well, I'm glad we can use wet wipes and showers with water and washcloths and soap.  I'm sure if the poor animals could, they would, but they "have to" lick the dirt off their fur and fecal material from their anuses.  I don't look at our "having to," but we're able to.  The animals don't wipe, not because they don't have to, but they're not able to, so they must lick themselves.  If we were not able to, we'd "have to" resort to something along those lines as well.  Of course, if I was a creator I would have created a system where animals didn't kill each other and there was no waste after eating food, hence no anus to clean.  I'd not create a system of having to deal with snot, menstrual flow, and semen, either.  It's all quite gross, really.


As for the statement that we have "a lot of health problems," I'm not sure on what you're basing that.  Compared to the general population, we're all in spectacular health standing.  My husband's only problem is injured vertebrae, one having been broken in the past, and he was obviously in good enough condition that it healed on its own.  He had two injuries to his back during childhood and one instance in adulthood, and part of his work requires work that puts a strain on it, something you don't know anything about, being in a different line of work.  He's probably doing as well as he is because of the diet I feed my family.  And having taken dietary supplements and receiving chiropractic care and taking extra precautions, he's doing far better now than he was a year ago.  As far as I go, the only health problem that has caused me any trouble is a hormonal imbalance, and I apparently wasn't born totally in balance, because my sister and I both were prescribed hormonal cream as infants.  Obviously that had nothing to do with my diet.  Many women now suffer infertility and other great problems due to hormonal imbalance, as it's very commonplace.

I credit how well I've done to my good diet.  I have been very fertile, having given birth to five children.  I gave birth to all of them at home.  I'm not overweight.  My blood pressure and everything else is optimal.  I don't get dental caries.  Early graying runs in my family, and I've got far less of it at this age than the others who inherited the same issue, and we all believe it's because of my diet.  I've never once come down with influenza in my 32 years of life, and very few people can say that.  Twice I've felt symptoms come on, and my immune system, also with the help of using elderberry, killed it before I succumbed to the illness.  Since I've used organic bioidentical progesterone cream all of my hormone-related problems cleared up, and I'm already taking less than I was taking, and I think I'll soon be able to wean off it, having changed to a vegetarian-transitioning-to-full-vegan diet.   I have not used prescription drugs in well over a decade and don't keep OTC drugs on hand, either.

None of our children have ever had to take pharmaceutical drugs, not even antibiotics (with the exception of one child having anesthesia for surgery to remove a broken tooth's root and another child getting a local for stitches).  Our kids do not get sick as often as the average child, and when they do get sick, they recover quickly.  My oldest, especially, gets mild symptoms and gets over things fast.  He's gotten over the flu in hours as opposed to days, like most people.  His first visit to a dentist wasn't until he was nine years old, and he only had one cavity, which is unheard of in this nation.  Over a quarter of children have one or more cavities by the time they're two to five.  Two of my children have never seen a doctor.  One has only seen a doctor over cuts that needed stitches or glue (two occasions).  The only time I took a child to see a doctor for a medical illness was just recently, and it was because we all got whooping cough (which is highly contagious, so that one is almost guaranteed to get it, unless you've been vaccinated in the past 2-5 years, and even then one may get mild symptoms), and I was worried about my two-year-old.  Many children that age are hospitalized for that illness.  I overreacted, because I was scared.  I had her x-rayed to make sure she wasn't developing pneumonia, and the doctor said her lungs were clear.

Although fifty percent of children get at least one ear infection before their first birthday, only one of my children ever has had an ear infection, and she was two, and I cured it myself in one day with homemade garlic oil.  I could go on and on.  People don't come to me for health advice for nothing.  I don't know any children healthier than mine, and most adults aged the same as my husband and me have serious diet-and-exercise related illnesses and are often on drugs.  So, to summarize, not only do we not have "a lot of health problems" as you falsely stated, it's quite to the contrary that we are all healthier than the average population. 

As for the conceited comment about your looks at your age and implying that we would not look as good, first I do not know what you look like without your makeup and your hair not colored. Makeup can cover a lot, and most men your age do not even wear it, so surely you cannot fairly compare yourself with makeup to the mainstream without it.  Secondly I do, in fact, intend to be doing a lot better and look better, for I intend to have all my original teeth without cavities and do not intend to be overweight.  I'm sure sugar is the root of the problem in both those instances and also the reason for the at least two prescriptions that you told me you take, which, by the way, I know are common prescriptions for those with schizophrenia (which I believe is often caused by excess sugar consumption, and there is plenty of evidence for that), so you might want to keep an eye on that, or the next thing we all may know, you'll have a delusion of grandeur, thinking you're an important "end time" prophet, as is also common in those with schizophrenia. 


Oh, did you change your doctrinal beliefs?  You seemed to imply that those like us are going to be the persecutors of "true Christians" in the "end."  You have taught for many years (and I also agreed) that the Catholic Christian brethren and the Catholic government would be the persecutors.  In my interpretation of scripture before, as I taught in my book on the ten commandments, the Christian government would put anyone to death who did not follow Catholic doctrine, which would include Christians that followed different doctrine, as well as Hindus, atheists, Muslims, etc.  So you see, in that interpretation I'd be persecuted right along with you.  I certainly wouldn't be the persecuting, but rather the persecuted.  Never once before did you teach that atheists and deists would be the persecutors.  You always taught that it would be the Catholic government.  Only when you want to once more twist my words and hurl an attack on me, do you insinuate that it would be non-Christians persecuting Christians.  In that case, you would be lumped in with the Catholics and Protestants.

I also never said that all Christians were against me, nor am I attacking any Christians.  I have plenty of Christian family and friends who love me just the same as always.  I never said all Christians I know are malicious.  No, there are only two that I know who were ever malicious to me, and you happen to be one of them.  I never intended to publicly name you (though of course I intend to show others that the bible is just one more book of myths mixed with truths).  I would never be writing posts like these, if you hadn't started saying false things about me.  When people start saying false things about me, I turn around and use the truth to defend myself and show that the other person is the one with problems.  You've brought it all on yourself with your pride, and you know what the bible says about pride.  "Pride comes before a fall."  That's one of the truths of the bible.

I would have been perfectly happy going on with my life and when referring to you in any way, NOT NAMING you.  And not saying false things. 

It's easy to understand why you and Matt didn't want to take our offer on friendly discussion and even a Skype chat.  It's easy to understand why, immediately following that, you made a post saying that you were making your last "reply" to me and that you were done.  It's easy to understand why you'd want to put it to an end.  You shouldn't have started to begin with.  You bit off more than you could chew.  Not once did either of you give a specific sensical and evidential answer to anything.  Your only repetition was that the answers are all on your website, which of course, isn't true. 


I was always pretty honest with you over the years.  You knew when I disagreed with you, because I usually let you know.  I didn't want to be overwhelmed with disagreements over health issues, so because I felt overwhelmed by your many blog posts, I had unsubbed, and even told you I felt overwhelmed. I only didn't specify why, as it was unnecessary.  The part about you being like all the other COG ministers came more clear only very recently.  I did indeed originally start talking to you, because you seemed different.  It seemed like you wanted to search things out more and didn't desire to be on top of an organization.  But then there were always a lot of things you didn't want to talk about, and pieces of a puzzle were put together over time. 

I didn't say anything about your posting Mercola health information on your blog was a problem.  I have subscribed to his newsletters for twelve or thirteen years now, myself.  The problem I specifically spelled out was your own comments that you added, which overturned the true science of the matter.  One of the examples I gave wasn't even related to a Mercola article, but it was rather your asking my children and others whether they wanted any chocolate-covered blueberries, and after the fact, and a bag was left behind, it was discovered they were candy, not blueberries, but you posted on your blog about how good things like chocolate-covered blueberries are for your health, which is true, but what you had bought and eaten right before posting that were not blueberries and were not good for health.


I do not remember whether there was anything else I wanted to comment about.   But truly, I just am sick of the false accusations and twisting of words, even to the point of sounding like you're changing your doctrinal stance, just so you can attack me.  I would have been more than fine with a friendly discussion of why I came to the conclusions I did.  It's too bad you didn't choose that route, instead.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Some Answers: Hebrew Tense and More

Some answers to Keith and Matt @ The Meltdown Continues:

I won't make time to systematically respond to each thing said, nor do I even know what all is said, nor will I make time to find out.  A few things:

First to Matt:  A lot of what you've said is what is irrelevant or nonsensical in regards to anything I said about anything.  I'm not sure what point you were trying to make when referring to chronology, for example.  You did not specify.  Concerning tense, Hebrew verbs do not hold tense when they stand alone, but it ought to be understood that a person should be able to determine the proper tense by the surrounding context in which the verb is placed.   I'm not even sure why you'd want to make that argument for Hosea 11:1-2.  Not only should it be clear that the verb ("called") should be in the past tense, it's abundantly clear from the context that it's got nothing to do with a messiah, nor anyone called Jesus.  Furthermore, the tense of the verb is not the only thing Matthew changed.  It was the nation of Israel that was Hosea's subject matter.  The text reads:

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images (KJV).

Surely you're not saying that Hosea was talking about Israel being called out of Egypt in a future time from when he spoke and that they would sacrifice unto Baalim in the future.  The translators put it in the past tense, because it was in the past that Israel had supposedly been servants to Egypt and when their god had supposedly brought them out of their bondage. 
So again, it has nothing to do with Jesus being called out of Egypt (in Hosea's future).  It's talking about Israel and the past.  Furthermore, as they were called, the people of Israel went from the people of  Egypt and sacrificed to Baalim and burned incense to images.  Matthew or whoever wrote that gospel conveniently left all that out, and this isn't the only so-called "prophecy" with which he pulled this stunt. 

Your attempt to discredit what I was saying by going off track and making a big deal about Hebrew tense (as the verb stands alone) is dishonest to your readers, and so once again it's an attempt to cast a bad light on me.  Hopefully whoever is reading, though, is "proving all things" and actually looking at these verses and doing their research themselves, rather than just getting carried away by what you're saying.  Surely anyone who is honestly giving it any meditation is going to realize how shoddy the "tense" argument is, for if it was such a problem we could easily make the old testament say anything we want and mix it up in any chronological order.  Maybe the story of Noah's ark is really meant as a future prophecy, that God will, in the future, tell a man named Noah to build a boat.  Maybe it will happen after nanotechnology allows a person to live several hundred years of age.  You see what a mess that would be, if we can just make up our own chronology by ignoring that we should be able to determine tense by context?

Matt, I do not know how old you are, but the times you've emailed me in the past, you've seemed to be a perfectly decent character.  I don't really know you, though.  I just ask that you tread carefully.  Don't waste your life away defending something that the evidence is against.

Now to Keith:
You said you weren't intending to attack my personal character and that you do not believe I'm different in my moral character and as a wife, mother, etc.  But is that not what you immediately insinuated when you first discovered my apostasy?  Did you not immediately email me with a message that you were SHOCKED (understandable) and then say that you hoped I would not do anything to your site, blog, etc. since I know your passwords?  That was offensive to me.  I'm not trustworthy because the bible tells me so.  I'm trustworthy, because that's just who I am and who I want to be.  I've got the ability to form long-lasting and deep friendships and other social bonds because of my honesty and trustworthiness.  I can live guilt-free, so therefore I can be happy with myself, too, in addition to living happily in my relationships with others.  Furthermore, concerning access to your various accounts, I offered, in reply, to walk you through step-by-step how to change your passwords so that you could rest easy, even though I have no intention of logging into your accounts.

Perhaps I took it too harshly, but I will honestly say I found it quite appalling.  I then immediately wondered if that is the kind of thing you would have done, if it was turned the other way.  It seemed you were using your own mindset to judge mine.  I'm not sure what you would do in that situation, or not, but I will say that the other person who hardcore rejected me as a friend along with you really did a similar thing years ago.  We ran a website community together with equal administration duties.  Her short temper fused toward me, and she deleted everyone's content, including things that were dearly important to me (namely an entire pregnancy journal that I hadn't saved elsewhere).  Although that hurt, I forgave her.  I easily forgive others.  We've all done stupid or ugly things.  There are plenty of non-trustworthy Christians.  My being a Christian or not shouldn't determine my trustworthiness. 

There are times in the past where I've become extremely irritated with you, but every time I've overlooked it.  I still loved you, and I went to special measures to prevent frustration. One of those things I already mentioned, namely unsubbing from your blog at a time in the past, because there were too many health-based commentaries you made that drove me up the wall, because it was in error or something else.  In time I decided to subscribe again, because I felt that I could manage to delete the ones I wanted from the get-go and only open the ones I thought were worth reading.  And it was working quite well.  I also had my reasons to stop reading so much on your website.  Of course it wasn't just your website.  I have avoided all COG ministers' articles and sermons.  Some of the things I listened to when attending UCG drove me up the wall, especially knowing that most listeners just soak it up unquestionably.  I've never seen anything good come from that.  Quite the contrary.  It's easy, when you see one person teach a lot of things that seem to make good sense, to start idolizing and putting to much trust in that person.  Then the person becomes proud and thinks too highly of himself.  I have concluded that some men do not even realize it.  They do not even see it in themselves. 

And just about all of us who have been a part of a COG mindset have thought of ourselves as too special.  Oh, that God actually chose us out of everyone, that he called and chose us.  And look at all those blind ones around us.  We've got the truth, and they don't.  Breaking away from that has only made me a better person.  I no longer think I'm doing better theologically than my family and friends who do not believe that way.  And poisonous relations cut me off.  I didn't have to sit down and analyze who was not a good friend.  They made the decisions.  It opened my eyes all the more to how cultish and toxic and unforgiving and hateful the fruit of the bible is.  The ones unharmed and uninfluenced, or mildly so, are the ones who are good people, no matter what.  One person told me I was the truest friend she'd ever had, but in the same breath told me she couldn't dare associate with me, anymore, that she needed "Godly women" as friends.  Well, she needs "godly" something, because she sure didn't treat me so, unless the "godly" she meant was the likeness of an evil god.  I would have stood by her side the remaining years of her life, just as I have been doing, just the same.  I would have lovingly encouraged her and been there for her.  I would have been true to the end.  But that wasn't good enough, apparently.  Without the "Christian" label, without the "belief," I'm as good as the shit in her commode.  I wonder whether the Christian-label friends she will try to find will ever be as true as I still would have been to her.  I wonder whether they will be as good an influence to her.  I've got enough experience and observation to know that the Christian label won't be a determining factor.  I was hurt by the cruelty I incurred.  And STILL (maybe I'm stupid) I would forgive her if she came to me.  And STILL I would be her true friend.  Because that's who I am.  In the meantime, I do still have friends who love me.  They don't all agree with me, but they love me all the same.  And that is truly more worthy than anyone who judges based on religious beliefs.

Also, I thought I'd explained how it worked to you in the past, but perhaps I'm mistaken:  You cannot judge by "hits" or "page views" or "visits" how many people are reading your articles daily.  Every file that downloads on a page counts as a hit.  One unique visitor can count as several hits on just one page, depending on how many images and other files, in addition to the html file itself, is on the page.  I can't remember for certain whether I said something to you in the past or not, but I do know that you publicly stated numbers before, and I saw your stats myself in your file manager, and you were not going by unique visitors.  According to the following site (Stat Brain, if I remember correctly), it's estimated that your site gets around 984 unique visitors a month (average of 33/day).  Not 1,400+ daily.  Then you've got to take into account there are many who land on a page, and it's not what they're looking for, or it may be one of the many books of others you've scanned to your site, rather than any theological article.   The majority of the 900+ average visitors each month are not there because they're wanting to stay there and read something. estimates the average visitor to your site spends 3 minutes and 28 seconds.   Undoubtedly there are a few that are spending hours, so the majority are spending mere seconds, after realizing that's not where they want to be.

As I believe Nathan already said, I'd be more than willing to enter into friendly discussion about why we've been led (separately, for the most part) to our current stance.  I already know of your writings and what you believe.  I already know what I believed before.  It's not for a "lack of foundation" or anything of that sort.  If Nathan is willing, I'd be willing to hook up to Skype with you both. 

I would think that a true friend would actually want to know everything that led me to where I am.  The only friend who did want to investigate herself has come to the same conclusions.  Perhaps that is the very reason why some, ironically, do not want to investigate.  They don't want to lose their faith.  But I have always valued evidence, where ever it leads me.  I've always said if I saw enough evidence against the bible, I would reject it.  The day just happened to arrive.  It was only a matter of time, though.  I would have seen it in time, regardless. 

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Someone Requested a Public Reply

This shouldn't even be on my blog, as it's meant as a reply to someone else's blog, but as it far exceeds what is allowed to be posted in the "comments," I'm posting here in reply to what someone decided to say to me publicly.  I have not once named any of my ex-friends by name and said anything about them publicly, but this person rolls a little differently.  This is the link to which it's a reply:

My reply:

Interesting.  You know, if it hadn't been for my husband, I'd have never seen your answer, because I don't read your blog.  I've refused to read any of the other things that he's read, because it's your own problem that you stroke your pride by naming me out and talking about me, and for those who are moral and intelligent wouldn't just take your word for it. 

I don't intend to bring myself down to your level by publicly naming you and saying all the things I could say.  I will, however, say enough to answer these questions, since you obviously want them publicized.  Don't want to disappoint.

Being forty years my senior is no reason to think so highly of yourself.  Most of my friends are a decade or two older than I and often come to me for advice.  Even in the bible there are stories that teach age doesn't mean everything.  Think of Jeremiah being "but a child," David saying he was wiser than all his teachers because of Yahweh's/Jehovah's law, and Jesus himself at twelve astounding the religious teachers at the temple. 

I stopped reading your site a long time ago. That has mostly been the case since your nonsensical hell article three years or so ago, teaching that the devils would be tormented forever (sounds satanic to me, so I kept a relationship with "God" as if he wasn't satanic and would desire to torture anyone for eternity), and yet you twisted some verses to then say that the fire wouldn't do anything to them but that they'd wander around forever after the fire burned out.  Firstly Jesus clearly said that the fire was prepared for "Satan and his angels."  If it were to do nothing to them, then it would be pointless.  Secondly, you formed a doctrine using verses out of Jude that doesn't have anything to do with any angels.  Verse 13's "wandering stars" doesn't mean angels.  The entire thing since verse 4 is talking of men.  Verses 12 and 13 use metaphors.  The men are wandering stars.  The remaining "to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever" doesn't mean someone is going to wander in the darkness forever.  If the "stars" in that verse mean angels, then it's on you to define who are the raging waves and who are the trees whose fruit withers, etc.  All of these things are metaphors using things in nature for the men the entire thing since verse four is about.   Just because you believed it didn't mean I did.  Not only do the verses not say all those things, but my morals caused me to revolt at the thought of anyone of love wanting to torture anyone forever.  Either the bible teaches the fire burns all, or all are somehow tortured forever, depending on which other verses you go by in the bible.  I remember you chose to dwell on the Revelation verse.  The book of Revelation almost didn't even make it into the bible canon. 

Or with non-biblical issues, just two quick examples:  How old does one need to be to know it's not a blueberry he is eating?  You boasted publicly on your blog that there are healthful things to eat like chocolate blueberries, right after a Feast of Tabernacles you spent with us when you purchased chocolate-covered blueberry-flavored (natural and artificial) corn syrup balls.  Most people would know, I think, whether they're biting an actual blueberry or a sugary and gritty corn syrup candy, without looking at the ingredients.  At better you had never eaten a blueberry in your seventy years and were simply ignorant, or at worse you were lying to make your audience believe you ate real blueberries.  Another example is a time you posted on your blog a comment on an article talking about how you should make sure you eat a fat (like an olive oil salad dressing, for example) with greens.  Your comment was that people should not worry about eating any fat, just as long as they ate the greens.  But it's a scientific fact that vitamin A (in which dark, leafy greens are rich) is fat-soluble, meaning you are not going to absorb it without the assistance of fat.  Most vitamins are water-soluble, but things like vitamins A and D are fat-soluble.  I didn't say anything to you about those things at those times, because frankly I tired of correcting you of things over the years, and that is the main reason why I unsubscribed from your blog the first time, because it was better that I not even put it before my eyes.  You like to believe whatever you want, anyway, and often ignore evidence, so it was a stressful waste of my time.  A third example, which was in the last blog post I was emailed before I unsubbed again, you were talking of Israel in a positive light and the Palestinians as "fanatics."  There you go again publicly boasting a bias without proper evidence of things.  You commented that the "fanatics" shouldn't think they could fight Israel.  Well, maybe it is so, but if you were run out of your home, you might fight for it, too.  If the Israelis were killing your children, you might fight, too.  If you'd look up the facts, Israel has killed far more Palestinian citizens and far, far more Palestinian children, and some of the Israeli children that have died were from "friendly" fire. A lot of the Palestinians are also Christians.  I saw a documentary three or four years ago that was very eye-opening.  Different ones were interviewed there, and it was no surprise that the Jews interviewed were full of pride (because they think they are god's "chosen people") and hateful.  The Palestinians were friendly and just wanted to live in peace.  (That's not to say there are bad Palestinians and good Jews, because of course there are.)  Then there were these Christians from the U.S. who had moved over there to do work for the Jews, because they felt it their Christian duty to help prepare the land for Christ's return and that the Jews were the chosen people.  And you know what the Jew who was asked his opinion said?  He was more than happy that people foolishly offered to do their work for them.  It was sick the way he acted about it.  You know, there could have been peace over there a long time ago if Israel would just agree to divide the land.  It's their sick religion that keeps the fighting going.  Same for the Muslims.  And for the Christians.

And no, you haven't honestly investigated the evidence against the bible, nor have you read the bible with a fresh perspective, or you would have come to the same realization I have…unless you're dishonest.  That's the only way, after seeing enough evidence and meditating on the immorality of the contents of the bible with the brainwashing set aside, to decide to stick with it. 

The people who are deceived are the ones who have clung to one of the many revealed religions and/or their holy books.  Even if the bible was the truth (which it's not), it would be immoral to serve a satanic god that is an absentee dad and is pathetic enough to leave his job to men who can't agree, leading to the vast number of religious beliefs we see today.  Not two people on this earth agree 100%, and that is why the groups keep growing.  Also, the knowledge of good and evil is a good thing.  It's what helps us make judgments.   Otherwise how would we know if what someone told us was good or not?  How would we know that the authority figure wasn't telling us to do evil?  A lot of the things Yahweh supposedly instructed Israel to do were evil.  Since I know the difference between good and evil, I know that a lot of those things were very evil.  I also knew in my heart since I wrote the ten commandments book that defending genocide and slavery were wrong.  The bible god was wrong.  That's because a Bronze Age tribe adopted that god, the god of war, so that they could slaughter, rape, torture, and burn.  That god COMMANDED genocide and rape and burning.  That god COMMANDED child sacrifices to lay the foundation of the rebuilt Jericho.  That god COMMANDED thirty-two captured virgins to be offered as a heave offering.  And on and on I could go.  Now, as people's morals evolved, you can see later on in the bible that the prophets imagine good things, and all of a sudden the god takes on a a more moral character.  Then there were some in the first century who decided to reverse engineer the old testament to start a new religion.

Isn't that fancy how you didn't give your readers a background to what I meant when I said I knew how you'd respond so that then you could twist my words to mean something they did not.  Either you knew better (by the sounds of it) and decided to lie again, or it's just one more example of how you are clueless about something you read or watch.  When I said I knew how you'd respond, I meant that I knew you and one other "friend" would reject me and not want to be friends with me anymore, simply because of a belief.  The reason how I knew is because I get a read on a person's heart and character after so many years, so I had come to know what kind of person you are.  You are not one of forgiveness, patience, humility, honesty, and other good qualities.  You do not live by what I termed the "spiritual covenant," but rather you live by the idea of the "carnal covenant."  You believe it takes fear to get someone to obey.  It's because each person views religion by his or her own character.  I have come to that realization.  I would have never done something like that to one of my friends, but then I judge friendships by character and behavior, not by belief, and I'm very forgiving and patient, so I am willing to go through a lot of junk with someone before I give them up.  My questions had kept mounting more and more over the years, but really it was a mixture of the UCG experience and you that let me be more open to really questioning the validity of the bible being the word of God altogether.  I was learning more and more about you, as you were revealing your true self, and it sickened me.  It could not be of god.  Not the god in which I believed.  My god didn't make me that way, the way you and other "ministers" in the churches are.  But then there is a certain cartoon that is very eye-opening:  That says it all.  That explains why my god was so loving, forgiving, and kind.  It's because that's who I am.  It explains how others who claim to love and serve the same god I did are so unforgiving, hateful, revengeful can be that way.  This explains why people in ANY religion can be any way.  Of course, there are some good people who then are ruined by religion.  Thankfully in my case, just as I got out of public school without losing my love of learning, so I got out of religion without losing my morals and kindness.

My comment on knowing how you'd respond had absolutely nothing to do with any research you've done about anything.  You were WAY off topic.  Not a surprise, though.

Okay, your next comment didn't make a bit of sense, either.  I asked you whether you had investigated the "Christian" holidays in order to come to the realization that they were pagan.  I already knew you had indeed done that, because you've said it in the past.  It was a rhetorical question to clue you into the fact that you need to also research where the Jewish holidays originally came from (they are not originally Israelite or Jewish, in other words) before you tell me that I'm wrong.  When I asked whether you had anyone telling you that you were wrong then, I meant when you decided not to keep the pagan holidays anymore.  If you NEVER had anyone tell you that you were wrong, then you're a pathetic Christian indeed, because pretty well everyone else has been judged for not keeping Christmas by those who do.  But then again, since you always visited your dad at Christmas, anyway, (and judging by an article you wrote on the topic, I assume you at the Christmas feast), then I guess nothing much was different for you, so I can see why maybe no one persecuted you for it.  Anyway, either you missed my point (as usual), or you are ignoring it.  My point was that before you judge, you should do your own research.  The holidays in Leviticus did NOT originate with Israel.  They were borrowed and adapted.

Oh, when I said I knew some people were concerned for me, I meant the ones with good hearts who honestly believe they've still got the truth and believe I'm being deceived by a devil.  No, I don't imagine you have any concern at all, although you sure haven't forgotten me.  Ironic, isn't it, that you're the one I could ruin, but I'm not publicly stapling your name on any site and making post after post about you.  Ironic how I'm supposedly the one who is evil, and yet you're the one who is trying to make yourself look better by lying about me and twisting my words to suit you.  You might not have any loving concern for me, true, but you certainly are hung up on me, I do declare!  You're just like the rest of the COG "ministers."  Hateful and prideful and so very wrong and blind.

You might BELIEVE the new testament is inspired (what about the old, because the new means nothing if the old wasn't?), but that's because it sells, and so it keeps going.  It doesn't mean that it is inspired.  There are more differences in the numerous NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT!  And there are many more added and changed things then you realize.  You might know the stuff in John's letter about the trinity was added and that those verses in Mark were added, but it goes much deeper than that.  Bart Ehrman, a new testament scholar (and others like him), have shared with the public all kinds of things that a person ought to know when reading the bible.  He started out as an evangelical Christian himself, but he came to the point when he realized he could not honestly reconcile his faith with the evidence.  Entire stories being added in later manuscripts, words being changed, divinity of the messiah added in, and more.

Ironic how you're the one who quoted about ever learning and not coming to the truth, yet you already think you've got the truth, so you're no longer searching.  I learn at least one new thing every day.  It just so happens that one of the recent things I learned was that the bible is not the word of any god. 

Just think about it, anyway.  Why would I be obligated to believe what anyone ELSE wrote saying that God talked to him?  I would not be obligated and would be gullible for believing him, unless God talked to me.  Since none of us has seen God, it would be ludicrous for any of us to believe someone else when he says he has seen him and talked to him and was given a word to write down.  Even my children know well enough when one child goes to relay a message to another, for the latter to come to me to really see whether I said the thing. 

The bible also has Jesus praying that all that would be believers of his word would be one with him and God so that the world would believe that he had sent him.  Well, I must say that God has done a pathetic job of answering that prayer.  The believers in Christ are far from being one.  There are so many different beliefs.  It's not from god. 

Any sane person who has read the bible has had questions, lots of questions.  The more a thinking person you are, the more questions you've got.  When you realize it's all just man-made, the questions are all at once answered.  There's no longer any confusion.  The bible says that God is not the author of confusion, but that is indeed what the bible is.  No two people agree on everything in it. 

Yes, I'm the same person, and that's all that matters.  I was the same before, during, and after, and so I'll remain.  Now maybe someone like you feels like he's got to stay attached in order to stay in line.  Indeed, some people, if not bridled by religion, will go off doing the most horrid things.  But I don't know why people like that even think they're going to be "saved," anyway.  What I got out of the bible was that you'd be judged by your heart, anyway.  So no matter how much you are keeping some law out of fear of punishment, if wish in your heart you could do evil to a person or steal his or her property, you will die the "second death." 

Oh, and perhaps I should remind you that the ninth commandment says not to bear false witness, and you've already done plenty of that against me.

Oh, there you go assuming again.  So you commented on my comment about someone else I knew who had left religion, and you said that makes me feel better.  YOU said it.  I didn't.  What I DID say was that I understand now.  And yes, you're right.  MANY people are coming to the truth now that the bible is a book of myths, just like the other myths, many that predate the bible but which the bible copied from. 

Well, in my view, a person that ditches someone according to belief and not character and behavior is not "Godly" or "Christian," but then I guess that only proves I was never the same kind of "Christian" you were.  I have no idea what goes on in such a person's head, but that kind of action only confirms to me that I did the right thing.  If that's the kind of fruit "Christian" religion brings forth, I do not want to be a part of it.  The good fruit I brought forth in my life was apparently not Christian in the sense that you count Christian.  Usually a person's behavior will draw a person to his or her religion (or threat of death), because they think the person is so kind.  I've seen your heart, and I don't want any part of your religion.  I can see clearly that the religion as a whole has brought nothing but bad fruit over the millennia, whether it's Catholic, Protestant, Church of God sabbath-keeping, Jehovah's Witnesses, or otherwise.  It's the few INDIVIDUALS here and there who are good and bring forth good fruit, and they would be that way regardless of whether they believed in the bible, or the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or no book at all.  No, I never want to go by the name of Christian.  You've shown me well enough how evil a person you can be, so it matters not whether you are Christian or Muslim or whatever.  You are prideful and hateful, just like the other church of God ministers.

"I'm still here to be your friend, if you find me worth talking to."  --My quote

ANSWER: I'm doing what I'm supposed to do when someone leaves the faith. God still loves you; I and ones like myself still love you; yet I must follow the instructions left to us by what I consider inspired through Paul and John and wherever found in the New Testament. --Your quote

Ah, what you're "supposed to do."  Or what you think you are, anyway, depending on what set of verses you use.  Pretty pathetic setup, if you ask me.  Not sure how the writers of that thought that would ever bring someone back, as IF they'd want to have anything to do with such cruel people ever again.  And you may "love" me in word, but you don't in deed, and that's what matters.  Anyone can "say" anything.  But it's the actions that truly reveal.  It is not love to reject someone just because they don't believe something you do.  You are failing to use your OWN judgement and your own capacity to TRULY LOVE, because you believe you're bound by some terrible command.  That's pathetic.  I certainly would have never done that, but I guess my love for others outshines the "god-inspired" verses you're going by.   You know,  a dear woman with whom I went to church at UCG emailed me, who hasn't seen me in months, since before this happened, and she had read my blog posts, and she has been nothing but kind to me.  She's another intellectual, though.  (I guess there's something to the intellectuals.  They're just too kind and caring.  Maybe it's brain advancement, not as close to a wild beast.)  Maybe I should tell her the bible tells her not to talk to me.  She's not being a good Christian.  But I'll tell you one thing.  It's a person like that who would be more likely to turn someone back, not someone who says hateful things and lies.  You might want to question what kind of being truly inspired such garbage that you follow, since it's worthless.  I don't know what kind of person in his or her right mind, after being abused, would want to turn back to the abusers.  INSANITY!!!  Are you mad?!?!

You said you've got a forty years head start on me.  I already explained that before.  That means very little.  It means your life clock is ticking down.  It shouldn't take seventy years for a person to know the difference between a corn syrup candy and a real blueberry.  And there have been plenty of COG ministers all wrinkled and old whom I've debunked on various biblical matters.  You're just using your age as another factor to boost your pride.  I'm thankful I've come to this knowledge in my thirties.  You may see yourself as having a forty-year head start, but I see you as already being in your seventies and still not realizing the bible is not God's word.

You said this is a heartache to you, but I wonder in what sense.  If you truly had any love for me, you sure wouldn't be acting the way you're doing.  I think it's personal to you.  I think I ruined some delusion you had in your mind. 

Oh!  And my Love said something a few days ago, something about your saying that I must have given in, because it's too hard to live with an atheist.  Another wrong assumption.  It's very much the opposite.  I've lived for many years with him that way (though he didn't have the knowledge he's now gathered the past two years; he just knew the bible lied to him when he prayed his son would live and didn't, even though the bible promises if you ask of anything in his name, it will be given), and he's been very respectful to me and has even more or less kept holidays with me, has let me lie to our children (though that has bothered him) in teaching them the bible myths as if they were true.  We've gotten along very well.  He even twice tried to live as a Christian again by reading the bible and praying, but neither time lasted long, as he just couldn't do it, knowing what he knew.  So, I could have kept on living the way I had, and it would have continued to be easy.  There were two, maybe three times, over the past year that our discussions (we've always enjoyed discussions) turned more into grill sessions toward me, it seemed, where I became overwhelmed, because I honestly did not have the answers.  You would have fallen on your face.  He has told me that I'm the ONLY one he has debated that had a chance of turning him.  That's because I don't use circular arguments.  I was actually ashamed of you when you were here the last time, and I was nursing the baby in my room, and you were talking to him and a friend, and you were basically saying that you knew the bible was the truth, because the bible says it's the truth.  That's a circular argument.  It was pathetic.  Anyway, the EASY thing would have been to refuse to look into the other claims and keep going.  I chose the DIFFICULT thing that has caused difficulties with persons such as yourself.  So for you to imply that I'm weak and chose the easy way is a huge lie.

Ok, so what about those bible verses?  I could apply all sorts of bible verses to you, because you lie or because you've been twice-divorced, or because you're prideful and think you've got more truth than anyone else.  Maybe I should quote the proverbs to you about pride coming before a fall. 

And DIALOGUE???  You just posted your answer to your email (which I would have NEVER seen had my husband not said anything; I told him I don't want to hear your junk) publicly on your blog.  That's NOT a dialogue.  The prefix di- means two.  A in this case means between, and logue comes from the Greek logos meaning word.  It means a conversation between two people, and the second person (yours truly) almost didn't even see it.  If my husband would not have actually sent me a screenshot in my text, I would have refused to know about it at all.  I suggest to you in the future if you want a true DIALOGUE, then you send it to me.  Otherwise use a truthful word.

In ANY of my future Youtube videos or anything I write, I was perfectly planning on not revealing your identity when I refer to you (because I'm not like you), but it seems that you have no problem using my name and saying all manner of LIES about me.  I don't think you want me to tell the TRUTH about you, at least not with your name attached.  You might consider that.  I would be able to easily draw your web traffic to a site that exposed the truth about you, which would undoubtedly catch a person's eye much better than your actual site.  It would be EASY for me to get it ranked right up with your site in the search engines.  

I would not have to lie about you (and wouldn't) to ruin you.  All I would need to do is tell the truth.  I can even use screenshots of actual emails, so there's no doubt in anyone's mind.  I still have all my records.  You're no different than any of the other COG ministers that you've bad-mouthed over all the years, and I've got the proof.  Then EVERYONE ELSE can know the real you, just as I have gotten to know very well over the last several years.

 And to think… You're likely writing all these lies and assumptions about me on the $1,200 iMac computer that my husband and I kindly gifted to you.  Absolutely no respect for what I've done for you and how kindly I've treated you all these years.  None of what I actually DID counts for anything up against the single transgression of not BELIEVING something you still do.  You REALLY should go click on the Youtube link I included above.  I'll actually make it easy and post it here again:  That says it all.  Because I simply no longer believe in the supposed same god in which you believe, you take it as a rejection, because it's really you who are your god.  That also explains why I wouldn't have treated  you the same way, because the "me god" is a god of kind and forgiving nature who doesn't have to believe everything another person does to be friends with him, just so long as they don't harm people or property.

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Matt's Dishonesty

The faults with the bible are so numerous that so many books could be filled with them all.  Prophecy problems are just one small part of it.  And within prophecy problems, one part of that is the so-called prophecies for the supposed messiah are not prophecies of any messiah whatsoever.  It's a fact that the gospel writers concocted elaborate stories, because they wanted people to believe that Jesus was the messiah (which, by the way, is understood by Jews to be a mere man, as there is no prophecy of the messiah being a god nor that he'd be a sacrifice).  What some of the writers did was to go back into the bible and search for details to use to make the story.

While all of the writers were dishonest, Matthew takes the cake.  He often changed words and phrases and omitted words in order to change the entire meaning just so that he could make it appear that some prophecy was being fulfilled.

I will only give three examples.  Each person should do his or her own work in investigating.  Clearly many people do not care to know the truth, and I've even been told as much.  I was told by one person that she knew I liked to search out truth but that she had no desire to make time to do so.  In other words, she'd rather continue living her entire life—perhaps decades to come—living a lie and teaching her children so, rather than to spare a few days or weeks or even a month to investigate on such an important issue as whether the bible is the word of God.  I do not believe there is any book or books written by man that is a "word of God," and if we simply give honest meditation to this, we can know that no book can be the word of God.  This person also was willing to throw our friendship in the garbage simply because I no longer believe the bible is the word of God, not because my character or behavior has changed, but because a belief has changed.  I have never judged any friendship of mine on a belief.  I always judge my friendships based on character and behavior.  That's why I still have friends that I've had since childhood, who have plenty of different beliefs than I do, but they live out lives of moral character and behavior, and we get along well.  That is what friendship should be based upon.

Certainly several people have proved just how immoral they are to trash a friendship based on a change of belief, rather than a change in character and behavior.  Two such people not only trashed the friendship but took it to the next level of abusive words and ugly behavior.  If that's Christian or Godly, then that's just one more piece of evidence that believing the bible is the word of God is wrong.  There is no way I'd want to live some eternity with people who base their friendships on mere beliefs, apart from character and behavior.  If that is what believing the bible (or Qur'an or any other) is all about, count me out all the more.  It turns people into immoral individuals.

I'm not any exception.  I defended immoral actions in the name of God, because I had been deeply brainwashed that it was the truth.  Since I'm in fact a moral person, I've been carrying around guilt for some of the content in my book on the ten commandments, namely genocide and slavery.  I've constantly carried around the guilt.  There's been no escape.  There's only been the telling myself over and over that it's what God teaches, and if he says it's ok, then it's ok....even though I know it's not.

Most people today have evolved enough morals to react in horror at the immorality in the bible.  Without any brainwashing (usually from early childhood) we'd be able to clearly see that the bible god is a very immoral individual (who thankfully doesn't exist) and that his followers were very immoral individuals.  Most of us are much more moral than any of the people living in that time.

Now....on to some of Matthew's dishonest "fulfilled prophecies":

Virgin Birth of Immanuel

Matthew 1:21-23 claims that Mary conceiving Jesus with the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah of a virgin (young woman) that shall bring forth a son named Immanuel.  Not only was someone being born and called Jesus not a fulfillment of someone being called Immanuel, but Isaiah's prophecy had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus.

Isaiah 7:10-16 deals with a sign Isaiah gave to Ahaz to prove to him that before the child to be brought forth is old enough to know good and evil, the land Ahaz abhorred would be forsaken of both her kings.  Obviously that had nothing to do with some Jesus that was born many hundreds of years later.  It was something that would need to happen quickly in order for it to be a sign to Ahaz.  Furthermore in chapter 8:3-4, a child was born.  Ironically enough, they instead called his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.  There is some reference to Immanuel in verse 9.  There is absolutely nothing anywhere that hints about Immanuel being a messiah and quite far from it.

What Matthew did by using Isaiah in this way is no different than what people do today when they say that Nostradamus prophesied the twin towers of the World Trade Center in NYC with his line:

In the city of York there will be a great collapse, two twin brothers torn apart by chaos while the fortress falls the great leader will succumb third big war will begin when the big city is burning.

You could also go to another part of Nostradamus' prophecies to say that he predicted that the WTC incident would be in September and by airplane as an act of terror:

In the year of the new century and nine months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror...

Now who's signing up to be believers in Nostradamus' prophecies?  It's time that we wake up and stop believing in such a thing as prophecy.  People can go back and pick people's "prophecies" to fit to whatever they like.

Calling Son Out of Egypt

In Matthew 2:15 it is said that Joseph and Mary fleeing with Jesus to Egypt was done so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet saying, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."

This was taken from Hosea 11:1. It states: When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.  

It continues in verse 2, As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

As you can see, the "son" was Israel, and it was referring to when Israel came out from Egypt.  Matthew conveniently left the "Israel" part out of it, as well as verse 2.  The son Israel is also the "they" in verse two, to mean all the people of Israel.  They sacrificed to Baalim and burned incense to graven images.

Very, very dishonest, Matthew.  This obviously has nothing to do with prophesying a future messiah.

This account of going to Egypt, it should be noted, is only found in Matthew's account.  In Luke's account, instead of fleeing for Egypt, Mary awaits her forty days of purification and takes Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem, and then they go to Nazareth.  There is no mention of a baby slaughter and having to flee to Egypt.  If you look on a map, you can see that Nazareth is well north of Jerusalem.  South of Jerusalem is Bethlehem, and then south of that is Egypt.  Matthew makes it sound like they fled Bethlehem and went to Egypt.  That's where the magi went to look for him.  But even if they were in Nazareth then (which means the magi actually didn't find him in Bethlehem), and even if it was after the purification period, it would be foolish to try to make it to Egypt when all the slaughtering was taking place between you and there.  You would likely be safer up in Nazareth of Galilee (which actually wasn't an existing town during that time, anyway) than to make your way down to Egypt, having to go right into slaughter-the-babies zone.  The reason the Egypt story was made up is because Matthew came across the "called my son out of Egypt" piece and thought he could make it into something.  Note also that he changed the past tense "called" to "shall call."  

A Nazarene

Matthew 2:23 says that Jesus came to live in a town called Nazareth so that it would be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he shall be called a Nazarene.

First of all, there is absolutely nothing said in the prophets of this nature.  Not a word.  Furthermore there is no mention of any such town as Nazareth in any of the OT bible books.  This is because the town of Nazareth did not even exist in the first century.

Most bibles include the footnote that takes you to Judges 13:5, 7, which talks of Samson being a Nazarite.  A Nazarite doesn't have anything to do with a citizen of Nazareth.  A Nazarite vow was a vow in the law of Moses (Numbers 6) which obligated a man not to cut his hair, not to drink wine or eat grapes, and not to touch dead persons.  This idea may be why Jesus is portrayed with long hair, but we know he was not a Nazarite, because he drank wine and supposedly touched dead persons on a regular basis.

Matthew made a very critical error here when he was busy searching the OT scriptures to use things to construct his story.

This stuff just goes on and on.  You can look at all the so-called fulfilled prophecies to see the errors.

Knowledge of Good and Evil: Good or Bad?

Is eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil good or bad?  I personally love eating from that tree.  I like to grow in knowledge so that I can become wise and discerning, so that I can make moral decisions that benefit me and others.

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it (Deut. 1:39)

We have on one hand the teaching that we are conceived in sin (Psa. 51:5 ) and that sin has fallen on all mankind due to Adam's and Eve's so-called "sin" (Rom. 5:12 ).  But here we see the teaching that little children do not possess knowledge of good and evil.  If the "sin" of Adam was that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and this is the sin that has been passed on, why is it that little children do not in fact know good from evil?  And of course we know this is true.  Modern psychology has come a long way, and it's known that until around the age of seven, give or take a year, a child does not possess his own concept of good and evil and can only rely on what authority figures tell him until that point in development.  This goes back to what I demonstrated in a previous post, namely that once you reach a certain age and a certain circumstance, you will "know good and evil."  And knowing good and evil is a good thing, because then it allows you to make a moral decision, to choose either good or evil. 

For my people are foolish, they know me not; they are sottish children, and they have no understanding; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge (Jer. 4:22).

This speaks on the bible god's behalf that his people are foolish and don't know to do good, because they have no understanding and no knowledge, that they're only wise to do evil.  First of all, since when is it wise to do evil?  Knowledge is the first step.  A person needs knowledge.  Then the person can make a moral and wise decision or a foolish and evil decision.  From these learning experiences and observations of others' experiences, persons obtain understanding.  Secondly it seems apparent that the so-called "sin" of Adam didn't befall these people.  They were "wise to do evil," because they did not possess the knowledge and understanding of the difference between good and evil.  There is entirely too much nonsensical double speak in the bible.

And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs (Ecc. 12:9)

This teaches that someone is wise if he teaches a person knowledge.  I agree with this.  I believe it's wise to teach knowledge to people.  Knowledge greatly benefits mankind and enables them to make moral decisions and obtain wisdom and understanding.  This statement in Ecclesiastes is completely contradictory to the notion that it was bad to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It basically teaches that the bible god is not wise, because he refused to teach Adam and Eve knowledge.  It teaches that the serpent was wise.

Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom (Jam. 3:13).

This statement exalts the man who is wise and knowledgeable.  It teaches that people should pay attention to those who are knowledgeable and have shown by his works that he is wise.  Here we see one more instance that the bible god is shown to be unwise and wicked for wanting to keep people in the dark and to punish them for finding out something.  Today there are millions of "Christians" and "Muslims" and "Jews" who beat faith into people, commanding fellows to not dare question what their holy texts say, to never read other texts, to never listen to science, to never question anything.  They beat fear into people, teaching that they will burn forever in hell if they stray.  They do not want them to grow in knowledge and become wise and full of understanding.  They go to strong measures for their fellows to "just believe" and "keep the faith."  If you do dare to question anything and choose knowledge, they often will shun you, reject you, condemn you, and hate you.

Source: Uncertain, perhaps

Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken (Isa. 7:15)

Here again we see that there is a time before a child is old enough to know good from evil and know to refuse the evil.  Children of a certain age, if they are doing evil, it's because they do not know it.  They can walk out in front of a moving car (evil/bad) and not know the horrible result.  They can take another person's possession and not understand that they are transgressing the other person's property rights.  This once again makes it clear that eating from a tree has absolutely nothing to do with knowing good and evil and that knowing good and evil is actually a good thing so that one can "know to refuse the evil." 

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and all discernment; so that ye may approve the things that are excellent (Phil. 1:9-10).

In order to exercise good discernment and to approve the things that are excellent, one must abound "yet more and more" in knowledge.  You're not going to be able to be endued with knowledge and discernment in order to approve good things if you do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (symbolically speaking)! 

Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate (Amos 5:15a).

It's impossible to hate evil and love good if one does not possess the knowledge of good and evil. 

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Food or Serpents? Which Will You Get?

If you're hungry and have nothing to eat or have something detestable only to eat, you will likely complain about your condition and ask for help.  If your child is hungry, if you're a good parent, you give him something to eat.  You also do everything in your power to provide healthful foods he likes.  If there's something he detests, and it's in your power to give him something else that's good that he does like, then you do everything in your power to give him something he likes.  We all dislike somet things.

So, food or serpents? Which will you get?  Depends on whom you ask.

Jesus taught the loving thing:

Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? "Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him? (Luke 11:11-13)

Compare with the satanic Yahweh monster god:

They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea,c to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died (Num. 21:4-6).

Supposedly the people Jesus were talking to were "evil" but knew how to give good gifts to their children.  And whoever the heavenly Father is/was, he is even more loving and giving.  He would be even less likely, in other words, to give a snake or fiery serpent or scorpion or anything bad to his children who ask for something.

We can know with certainty that Yahweh is not the heavenly Father Jesus spoke of, nor Jesus himself.  Yahweh was a very evil and tyrannical person, and even if he was real, we would be morally obligated to fight against him to protect innocent people from mass genocide, infanticide, abortion and murder of pregnant women, from sexual slavery and forced labor slavery with beatings, rape, bloody human sacrifices and burnings and cannibalism, forced marriage to rapists, and just about any other horrible atrocity about which you can imagine.

The more and more I'm examining the bible with an intellectually honest mind, I'm seeing that there was a clear motive for the people who wrote the new testament books, in hopes of extinguishing the wicked Jewish god Yahweh.  Unfortunately, it not only didn't work on the Jews, we've since gotten Christianity and Islam, both of which have murdered millions upon millions of innocent people through the ages and is filled with hate and exclusiveness mentalities. 

Sunday, August 3, 2014

A Liar and Murderer From the Beginning (Plus Some Bonus)

Jesus supposedly said:

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).

Whoever this "devil" is was said to be both a murderer from the beginning and a liar.  Let's go back to the beginning to identify who murdered from the beginning and is a liar and father of lies.

It is generally thought by most that the serpent in the Garden of Eden story in Genesis is the devil and/or Satan.  It is thought that he deceived Eve into eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate" (Gen. 3:13).

But let's investigate to see how it all really went down.  The Elohim supposedly created the garden, mankind, and all the trees and such, and then what happened?

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:16-17).

Now enter the serpent.  Let's see what he said:

[The serpent] said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:1b-5).

Okay, so we've got the Elohim saying if the two humans eat from that tree, they'll die in the day they eat it.  Then we've got the serpent saying they won't die but rather they'll be as gods, knowing good and evil.

So now we need to see what really happened to see which was telling the truth and which was lying:

They ate of the tree, they didn't die, and then:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever (Gen. 3:22).

Well, it's pretty clear-cut as to who told the truth and who lied.  The serpent told the truth.  God had simply lied to them, told them they'd die in hopes that it would make them afraid to eat from the tree.  He really knew that they'd become like gods like the Elohim and know good and evil.

The Elohim is like those lying parents out there who say some monster is going to get them if they don't stay in bed or say other lying threats, because they're not mature enough to tell their kids the truth and deal with having to explain why they really want them in the bed.

The serpent is like another adult, who upon asking whether the kid's parents really told her that monsters would get her if she got out of bed, informed the child of the truth, that really the child's parents didn't want the child to be up knowing what adults like to talk about or do after the children are in bed.

The Elohim is the furious parent(s) who curses the other adult for daring to tell his/their children the truth because they weren't good enough parents to tell the truth themselves.  They weren't mature and honest enough to simply say, "You are a child and need to get some sleep.  We like to spend time alone as adults for awhile, because that is our right.  We love you and will see you in the morning for another wonderful day together."  It's sick that there are parents out there who frighten their poor children by making up stories of monsters that could get them.  It's even more sick that a parent would tell a child if he finds out something, he or she will die for it.

If it wasn't a good time for Adam and Eve to know certain things (like what their sexual organs are for and that they should be covered, as Adam and Eve certainly seemed to immediately know), then the Elohim should have simply told the truth and said that he would lovingly teach them things when the right times came.

Of course the whole nakedness thing and what their sexual organs are for and that they might ought to cover them in front of the Elohim (lest he get a hard-on for Eve like he did for Mary) is nonsense, anyway, because he/they had already told them to be fruitful and multiply.  Duh... Surely they knew how to do it, and if they didn't, I'm sure they'd clue in real quickly by seeing the animals do it.  It doesn't take eating fruit from a tree.  All of my children have gathered the knowledge on sex and reproduction from early ages.  My firstborn was five and laughing about our rooster "making sex" with the hens and calling beetles that were seen everywhere "sex beetles," because they were seen everywhere mating.  He'd seen things like that for years.  He'd seen baby animals.  He'd had baby brothers and had listened to me read a children's book on how babies are made.   When my children ask questions, they get honest answers.  The answers at the age of three are different than that of seven or those of ten or eleven, but they get honest answers.

If the story in Genesis is true, then the Elohim are pathetic parental figures.  There are plenty of human beings who soar high above their competence levels. 

Eve must have been frightened standing in front of the god.  The tone of voice from the god must have been horrible and frightening for Eve to have responded the way she did, that the serpent deceived her, because the fact bears out that he wasn't the one who deceived anyone.

It's stupid on the Elohim's part for Adam and Eve to not know they were naked, if he/they expected them to reproduce as he'd commanded.  What an incompetent idiot!

Who put this story together, anyway???  It's really sad that we're brainwashed from childhood to believe one way so that we don't see what's really written there.  If we toss away the lies that we're told we must believe, it becomes clear when we read the bible that there is a lot wrong. 

There are some apologists out there who say the death curse the god(s) warned of didn't really mean they'd drop dead that day but rather that they'd eventually die, but of course that argument really falls apart for two reasons:

1. By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return
(Gen. 3:19).

They were made with flesh bodies from the beginning, so from the beginning it was planned that they would eventually die.  

2. The only way to live "forever" was to eat from the tree of life:

Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever (Gen. 3:22b).

If by eating from the knowledge tree they'd lost eternal life, then what was the point of the life tree, if they were designed to live forever in the first place?  And also if they lost the chance for eternal life simply by eating the knowledge tree, then why should Elohim also not die, since the Elohim know good and evil.  If that's a sin, who are they to say it's not a sin for them but is for us?  Parents are to set examples for their children.  It would also be very unjust since many other people who have lived have deliberately chosen evil, which is actually something bad, whereas learning what is good from evil is not and are supposedly given a choice to live eternally.  Why would that be withheld from Adam and Eve?

It's all very asinine.

It doesn't get any better as you go through the bible.  There are big problems throughout.

I'm going to go ahead and transition to my new blog at soon.  I won't post much more here.

But I will continue to write all about these topics.

For a fun bonus, I will leave you with a couple other things:

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel (1 Chron. 1:21).

And again the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 24:1).

Was it Satan, or was it Yahweh?  Or is Satan and Yahweh one and the same?  Or do they work together?  No matter how you slice it, there is a problem.  Then citizens of Israel were killed as a punishment by Yahweh for David taking a census.  This is like what Yahweh did to Pharoah.  He  worked on the pharoah's mind so that he'd refuse to let Israel go, but then Yahweh punished the citizens of Egypt for what he himself forced pharoah to do. 

There went up a smoke out of [God's] nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it (2 Sam. 22:9).

Out of [leviathan's] nostrils goes smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth (Job 41:20-21).  (See Isa. 27:1 to see the leviathan described as a serpent).

Whatever the bible god is and whatever the leviathan serpent dragon thing is, they sound the same.  They both have smoke coming out of their nostrils, fire coming out of their mouths, their breaths kindling coals.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Yahweh Loved Human Sacrifices, My Bible Tells Me So

Okay, let's get started.

No one, however, may dedicate the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the Lord; whether an ox or a sheep, it is the Lord’s. If it is one of the unclean animals, it may be bought back at its set value, adding a fifth of the value to it. If it is not redeemed, it is to be sold at its set value.  But nothing that a person owns and devotes to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord.
No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death (Lev. 27:26-29).

Notice that no one could dedicate a firstborn of anything to Yahweh, because he had already made clear back in Exodus that the firstborn of both man and beast were his, and those things were to be redeemed (Ex. 12:13-15).  The Hebrew bible is not new in laws of redemption.  Other pagan cultures often redeemed their sons with animals.  

But here we see obviously that persons could be devoted to Yahweh in sacrifice and could not be redeemed.  And indeed there are plenty of examples of such.  So let's move on.

I'll go back to others, but I want to skip forward to Jephthah for now.  

Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.
Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.
“My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”
“You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
From this comes the Israelite tradition that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite (Judges 11:29-40).

The tribal war god of Israel, Yahweh, accepted Jephthah's vow and let him win the victory over the Ammonites.  Jephthah's daughter went to mourn her virginity for a couple months, but when she returned, he "...did to her as he had vowed."  And he had vowed to sacrifice her as a burnt offering.  

Now I read many years in the past some apologetic article claiming that she was not sacrificed but rather had to stay a virgin all her life, but since the passage doesn't say that and is rather very clear about what it does say, I just went on thinking that Jephthah was not approved by God.  But this is far from the truth.

The story continues after the death of Jephthah's daughter, and he was granted even more victorious slaughter.  And then the author of Hebrews wrote in the so-called "faith" chapter:

And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—who through faith...(Heb. 11:32, 33a).

And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect (vs. 39-40)

How sick! I don't approve of this!!!  How did I not notice him in Hebrews 11??  But there's more, much more, so let's continue on.  There's so much else I see wrong now, anyway.  I no longer see the people I thought were good as good, like David.  I'm awake now.

Okay, it's easy to see how I've read over this upcoming stuff before, because I lacked some important knowledge before.  I had never heard of foundation sacrifices, so I could not possibly understand what was being said in the book of Joshua.  

Foundation sacrifices were common in ancient cultures.  Modern archaeologists have found many children within walls surrounding cities.  Just Google about foundation sacrifices.  You can even go to Google Images.  

Joshua laid an oath on them at that time, saying, “Cursed before the Lord be the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho.
“At the cost of his firstborn shall he
lay its foundation,
and at the cost of his youngest son
shall he set up its gates.”

So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame was in all the land (Josh. 6:26-27).

That wasn't just a threat that a person's child would be killed if he rebuilt a city there (as if that in itself isn't bad enough, what's wrong with building there?), but this is saying that the firstborn and youngest children of the man who decides to build there would be sacrificed for the foundations. 

Fast-forward to the time of the reign of Judah's king Ahab:

In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho. He laid its foundation at the cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun (1 Kings 16:34).

This is sick!  Yahweh cursed people for rebuilding where Jericho is and commanded foundation sacrifices of the builder's firstborn and youngest sons.  Sick!  Sick!  Sick!  Oh, and I just realized, that's another contradiction (out of hundreds and hundreds in the bible)!  Remember according to Exodus and Leviticus the firstborn son of someone is to be Yahweh's, but is supposed to be redeemed and so cannot be devoted to destruction. Only other people were supposed to be allowed to be devoted as sacrifices or burnt offerings. 

It is believed by Christians that Jesus of Nazareth (even though that town didn't exist in the first century) was the son of Yahweh (though Yahweh is a really a non-entity but one of the many sons of El the head god of the Canaanite pantheon).  If it was truly so important that the town of Jericho never be rebuilt, if it was truly so abominable that someone rebuild in that location and call it by that name, then surely Jesus would have not ever gone to Jericho.  Or if the foundation sacrifices of Hiel's firstborn and youngest sons were abominable to God (though it's clear in Joshua and 1 Kings that it was Yahweh's curse and commandment), then Jesus surely had an opportunity to say something during his visits to Jericho.  See Mark 10:46; Matt. 20:29; Luke 18:35; 19:1

Not too abominable to be in existence again, is it?  Nah...just wanted to make sure the foundations included two sons of the builder, that's all.

Then there's the king of Moab who sacrificed his son for a god's favor in battle, since Israel was attacking.  Once his son was burnt as an offering, wrath (from a god, supposedly) came upon Israel, so Israel fled.  Now it's unclear whether the king sacrificed his son to the Moabite god Chemosh or the Israelite god Yahweh, but either way they all thought it worked.  Israel fled.  Either Chemosh came out to be the stronger god in that battle because the sacrifice was to him, or Yahweh was incensed against his own people because the Moabite king sacrificed to him when Israel did not.  This is all found in 2 Kings 3:26-27.  If you go back and read what was leading up to this, the wicked prophet Elisha (same guy who cursed in the name of Yahweh for bears to come out of the forest and maul to death 42 young guys/kids simply for making fun of Elisha for being bald) said that Yahweh promised that the Moabites would be delivered into Israel's hands.  That didn't happen.  All was going all right for Israel until the sacrifice by the king of Moab. 

Have you ever noticed in scriptures like Leviticus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 12:31 and others, that they command not to sacrifice one's children in fire to Molech or other gods?  Those of us who find human sacrifice appalling and have been taught that the bible god is a god of love naturally assume these scriptures mean no child sacrifices or burnt offerings of humans, period.  But when we carefully examine the bible as a whole, two things become clear:

1. The bible contradicts itself a lot.  
2. Yahweh loved burning animals and humans and loved murdering in general. He loved genocide and when his followers killed babies and bashed babies on stones and ripped open pregnant women and made great bloodshed.  But the catch is that he only delighted greatly in these things if they were offered to him.  

You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols (Ezek. 16:21). 

Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god (Ex. 34:14).

So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’ (What a sicko)“Therefore, son of man, speak to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: In this also your ancestors blasphemed me by being unfaithful to me: When I brought them into the land I had sworn to give them and they saw any high hill or any leafy tree, there they offered their sacrifices, made offerings that aroused my anger, presented their fragrant incense and poured out their drink offerings. Then I said to them: What is this high place you go to?’   (Sounds like someone is jealous)” (It is called Bamah to this day.) “Therefore say to the Israelites: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Will you defile yourselves the way your ancestors did and lust after their vile images? When you offer your gifts—the sacrifice of your children in the fire—you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to let you inquire of me, you Israelites? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I will not let you inquire of me (Ezekiel 20:25-31).

When we allow ourselves to wake up, we see the bible for what it really is.  People say they think the things Stalin, Hitler, Dracula and others did were horrible things, but none of those people did anything as evil on the huge scale that this Yahweh character did.  

It's OKAY to wake up and stand up for what is moral and right.  It's good and respectable to say, "You know, something is WRONG here.  This is not good."

It's OKAY to search through the bible and read it with an open mind, scrubbed free from the programming, and realize, "You know, we've been taught that Satan is the one who lied and murdered from the beginning, but really the stories reveal that El and Yahweh lied from the beginning and murdered.  If anyone is Satan, it's Yahweh."  Count the times Yahweh murdered and then compare to the times Satan is said to have done so.  Count the times Yahweh deceived and then compare to the times Satan is said to have done so.  Count the times Yahweh commands rape and compare to the times Satan commanded it.  Do the same for coveting and stealing and kidnapping and every other abomination.  Search through the bible and see how many times Yahweh commanded for these things to be done, then go through the bible and count the times Satan did those same things.  Then you decide who is evil.

Let's examine this next passage:

Hear the word of the Lord, you kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. ‘In this place I will ruin the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who want to kill them, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds and the wild animals. I will devastate this city and make it an object of horror and scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them (Jeremiah 19:3-7).

He was pissed because the Israelites were burning incense and children to other gods.  He was jealous again.  The fact alone that there were innocent children being murdered is obviously not the problem for him, because he decided that since they wanted to serve other gods he would make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters when their enemies would come against them.  So much for caring for the innocent children! 

No, of course it didn't enter his mind for the Israelites to burn their children in the fire to Baal.  He had made clear all the children were his (of which the firstborn were not to be killed, but rather he charged a ransom for them, so the parents had to pay up).  But sacrificing and burning children most certainly did enter the mind of this bloodthirsty monster.  He never commanded anything to be done for other gods, as he was a "no gods before me" and "jealous" god, but it "entered his mind" for Isaac to be sacrificed and burnt, but then he provided a ram for Abraham to murder and burn instead.  

On to the next horror story...

As readers may know, it was common in ancient cultures, during times of famine, to offer up human sacrifices to appease the god(s).  We may be horrified by this, but what we ought to be more horrified by is the fact that Israel and their tribal war god Yahweh were no different.  And shame on me, because some of these verses I'm about to share were highlighted in one of my bibles as part of my family studies for an upcoming book.  Now, you'd think I'd have clued in then (like two years ago) when I read over that.  You'd think I would have paused and said "What is this garbage?  This is not only unfair, but this is no different than other pagan cultures did!"  But no, I was still living in blindness.

During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years; so David sought the face of the Lord. The Lord said, “It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death.”
The king summoned the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not a part of Israel but were survivors of the Amorites; the Israelites had sworn to spare them, but Saul in his zeal for Israel and Judah had tried to annihilate them.) David asked the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? How shall I make atonement so that you will bless the Lord’s inheritance?”
The Gibeonites answered him, “We have no right to demand silver or gold from Saul or his family, nor do we have the right to put anyone in Israel to death.”
“What do you want me to do for you?” David asked.
They answered the king, “As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and their bodies exposed before the Lord at Gibeah of Saul—the Lord’s chosen one.”
So the king said, “I will give them to you.”
The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the Lord between David and Jonathan son of Saul. But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah’s daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite. He handed them over to the Gibeonites, who killed them and exposed their bodies on a hill before the Lord. All seven of them fell together; they were put to death during the first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning...

And the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son buried they in the country of Benjamin in Zelah, in the sepulchre of Kish his father: and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was intreated for the land. (2 Sam. 1-9, 14).

There was a famine, David prayed and found out from their god Yahweh that it was because he was angered over Saul killing the Gibeonites, David had two sons and five grandsons of Saul's hanged, and then their god was intreated.

Here we see one of the many times Yahweh and his followers punished others for someone else's doing.  Of course, there's the huge contradiction in Ezekiel 18, which happens to be one of my personal most-loved bible chapters, because of its proper righteousness.  It teaches that a father should not pay for the sins of his son, nor a son pay for the sins of his father.  

It's all a lie, though, in Ezekiel 18, talking of how Yahweh says a man should die of his own sin, because he commanded the opposite over and over and over again through the horrible books in the bible.  He was always punishing others for someone's wrongdoing.  David's baby would know all about that.  David and Bathsheba engaged in adulterous sex, made a baby, and Yahweh decided to put the baby to death for David's sin.  

Contradictory and unjust and just downright immoral and sick!

Most of us really would not live our lives the way Yahweh commanded Israel to do.  They were to do right to each other, but everyone outside of Israel who did not serve Yahweh were free game to murder and genocide, to rape, to lands being coveted and stolen, and more. 

And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the heads of the fathers houses of the congregation; and divide the prey into two parts: between the men skilled in war, that went out to battle, and all the congregation. And levy a tribute unto Yahweh of the men of war that went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the oxen, and of the asses, and of the flocks: take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for Yahweh's heave-offering. And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one drawn out of every fifty, of the persons, of the oxen, of the asses, and of the flocks, even of all the cattle, and give them unto the Levites, that keep the charge of the tabernacle of Yahweh. And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as Yahweh commanded Moses.
Now the prey, over and above the booty which the men of war took, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, and threescore and twelve thousand oxen, and threescore and one thousand asses, and thirty and two thousand persons in all, of the women that had not known man by lying with him. (Virgins)
And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep: and Yahweh's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen. And the oxen were thirty and six thousand; of which Yahweh's tribute was threescore and twelve. And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which Yahweh's tribute was threescore and one. And the persons were sixteen thousand; of whom Yahweh's tribute was thirty and two persons. And Moses gave the tribute, which was Yahweh's heave-offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as Yahweh commanded Moses (Num. 31:25-41).

I'm taking it that these virgins weren't given the opportunity to "bewail their virginity" as Jephthah's daughter did.  Jephthah's daughter agreed with the sacrifice.  These poor captive virgins probably screamed and struggled against the horrible heathen (Israelite) captors that murdered them and burnt them to Yahweh, as Yahweh had commanded.  

This is sick!  This is evil!  I do not approve of this.

And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” And Samuel said,
“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
as in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to listen than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has also rejected you from being king.” (1 Kings 15:20-23).

Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal (vs. 32-33).

Note the "devoted to destruction."  Remember Leviticus 27:26-29, where any person who is devoted to destruction must be murdered and burned.  

Odd how I never noted that Samuel did his little speech on being better to obey than to sacrifice, but he turned around and sacrificed.  It's really good if you read the entire bit, as I did not include the whole length of the chapter.  The whole thing that was disobeyed in the first place was not sacrificing things.  So why say something so stupid as that?  And really, I've always looked at the "obey" part as obeying the law of love.  You know, love your neighbor as yourself.  But so much of what Yahweh commanded were things of wickedness.  It was hate your neighbor by wiping them out, including slaughtering babies, then saving the virgins to rape, stealing their neighbors' lands, burning things.  Then it was burn hundreds of thousands of animals and burn people.  

And there we have it once again, punishing people for something someone else did.  Yahweh wanted a genocide of the Amalekites (including babies and other children), because their ancestors from several hundred years before did not let Israel through their land when they supposedly came out of Egypt.  Well, first of all, who could blame the Amalekites for not wanting the Israelites on their land?  They were a warring group of people bent on destroying others.  Secondly, what do the Amalekites several hundred years later have to do with it?

Apparently Yahweh didn't care about anyone else who were slaves to the Egyptians, because in the slaughter of the firstborns of Egypt, it included the firstborn of the maidservants! (Ex. 11:5) If they were slaves, then what did they have to do with the slavery of the Israelites?  Furthermore Yahweh hardened the pharoah's heart, anyway, after every plague, and what do the people have to do with what pharoah said, especially when pharoah was being mind-controlled, anyway? And of course every time Yahweh mind-controlled anyone or deceived anyone, the bible proclaims that it was so he could show his power and might.  What an evil tyrant!  You make a person do evil, and then you punish the person for doing it.  That's might loving, holy, and righteous.  Too bad we don't see parents the whole world over doing more of this with their kids.  What a fantastic world it would be.  Really, you can start when they're really young.  Just take the arm of one of your children, make the child hit a sibling, and then punish the child for it.  Then you can say, "See how powerful I am?  Don't mess with me.  I'm in charge, and if you don't obey, I'll stone you or burn you to death."  Wouldn't that be swell? 

Long after I'd answered a lot of childhood questions from having grown up Protestant and had changed my beliefs after doing my research, to be a "commandment-keeping Christian," I still have had questions lurking in my mind. But without any doubt in my mind, the single biggest question I've had over the past several years is:

We think the modern parents who murder their children and claim God was testing their faith to see how much they loved him are psychotic, and some even say that it was really Satan who told those parents to do it, but yet why didn't Abraham think that when he nearly murdered Isaac?  Why didn't he think that it was a demonic spirit?
If we credit all the things we know in our hearts that are good to God and all the things we know in our hearts that are bad to Satan, then how can the Abraham story be explained? 
All it takes is for you to do your research.  What Abraham and companions did was not any different than what others did in the surrounding cultures.  That family was henotheistic.  The Israelites chose Yahweh as their single god to worship, rather than worship any of the other gods, because they loved to kill, steal, and rape.  Yahweh was the god of war in the Canaanite pantheon of Gods (headed by El).  If you look today in Israel, you'll see nothing has changed.  They still love to murder others, steal people's land, and so on, and they claim they have the right to do it all in the name of Yahweh, because they are his chosen people.  

Abraham didn't mind cutting off foreskins, either.  Hey look, the majority of people in the United States still let their boys be circumcised without questioning it, but I've had three boys, and we had none of them cut on.  I'm anti-genital mutilation.  I watched a video (actually I could not watch the entire thing, it was too violent and heartbreaking) of an infant circumcision, and I decided right then I would not let any child of mine undergo that procedure.  I was able to use "new testament" scripture, of course, to stay in line with my being a Christian.  But if I didn't have that, I would have just been disobedient to Yahweh's law.  

If I'm not even willing to unnecessarily let someone violently shed blood from my sons' penises, what makes you think I'd prove my "faith" by murdering a son for a god?  Well, I wouldn't. Plain and simple.  

Since I would never do this, I do not know why Abraham would have shown his faith by doing such a horrible thing.  Since I'm unblinded and free from this horrible bible cult, I will boldly say I do not respect the person of Abraham whatsoever.  

Nor do I respect the person of Yahweh (who really doesn't exist but was one of many made-up sons of El and brother of Baal and others).  He showed over and over and over again through the bible that he loved the most atrocious murders, violent and bloody deaths against innocent babies and pregnant mothers and rapes of virgins who had seen their families murdered.  Absolutely no mercy against those people because they did not serve him.   He showed himself to be very unjust by repeatedly punishing innocent people for things other people did.  The bible repeatedly tells of him deceiving people or forcing them to do things against their will so that he could then punish them.  He demanded constant human and animal slaughtering on a large scale and the burning of their bodies so that he could smell it.  

Is it any surprise that someone would want to come along and change up things to make things better?  Doesn't it make sense that someone would want to start a new cult in hopes that the Jews wouldn't be so murder-crazy and rebellious?  Even if it meant taking things here and there from the bible to insert into his story to make it appear that a messiah had come and fulfilled prophecy, I can understand why they wanted to do it. 

Should we be surprised, though, that it's portrayed that Yahweh gave up his own son to have him murdered because of something someone else did?  We should expect nothing else, since that's all he ever did throughout the bible.  He was always murdering people for things other people had done.  That's just his way.  He delights in murdering innocent blood for something someone else did.  The only thing worse is that there was no burning hell in the bible, but in the gospels there is a horrible punishment for those after death who do not believe and obey the gospel of Christ, who do not accept that Yahweh had his son murdered for mankind.  

You know, I've never had trouble understanding that people who walk in goodness deserve forgiveness and people who walk in wickedness without remorse deserve punishment.  But I never deeply questioned the Christ sacrifice story, having it so ingrained within me all my life...until one day I heard two persons discussing it, and the one person said, "Why not just forgive?"  

Wow.  That really hit me.  The following day I wandered around outside meditating on that.  "Why not just forgive?"  

Well, yeah.  Why not?  That's a good question.  I mean, after all, that's what I do with my beloved children.  I guide them in goodness, and when they mess up, I talk to them, and I forgive.  When I mess up, they forgive me.  Parents aren't without wrongdoings, either.  

God is the rule-maker.  So why is our morality better than his?  I speak of this Yahweh that people assume is god.  Of course he's not.  He's a bronze-age mythical god, one of many gods.  But people have it programmed into their minds that he's full of righteousness.

Well, not according to my rulebook.  And why should I respect him when he's far worse than any cruel man dictator that has ever ruled on this planet?  That's not what I practice.  And who does?  Does anyone think we should practice the immorality of Yahweh and his followers, as explained in the bible?  

Will you be blind and say, "Who am I to say what's righteous?"  Well, you've got choices.  You can submit to Yahweh and agree that he's perfect and righteous.  Or you could stop beating yourself up over your little mistakes that pale in comparison to the wickedness of that tyrant.  I don't know any human being who is more immoral than the likes of Yahweh.  

If he's a parent, he needs to ask for our forgiveness for being such a horrible monster, a horrible example.  Just think of all the horrible wars just between Jews, Muslims, and Christians?  Think of all the horrible things done in history in the name of that monster.  

If there really was a Yahweh and a Satan, it should be clear who is really the good one and who is the bad one.  All you've got to do is read your bible!  Tally up all the evil done by Yahweh (and it even says several times that he does evil, and sometimes he even repents of the evil and feels bad, but it's never long-lasting, as he's always quickly back to unleashing the worst wrath on people) and that done by Satan, then you judge.  

If there really was a Yahweh and a Satan, then who is really deceived?  If there really was a Satan, then I'd say Yahweh is the Satan, and he's done a damn good job of deceiving everyone into worshiping his monstrous being.  

I firmly believe there are two types of people in the world:  good people and bad people.  It doesn't matter whether the person is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or else.  There are bad people and good people under all those labels.  

And I like good people and being around good people.  

As for me and my household, we will serve goodness.   Ol' Joshua and his household liked to serve Yahweh, but I won't serve someone whose morals are so beneath mine.  A parent should guide a child in goodness and lovingly guide.  That Yahweh character stays hidden and pits everyone against each other in the most horrible acts.  He's a cowardly and evil person.   If I had created the earth and everyone, I'd be present and be a loving guide, just as I am in real life to my children.  

What about you?  Do you love Yahweh the war god of the Israelites?