Hate Mail

Jonathan Boyd, Page 2

August 24, 2001:

[Quoted] "The fact that he said he would write the same words does not mean he actually did write the same words. You assume his infallibility."

I assume that when someone says the will do something, they will do it. There is no reason to doubt that he was going to write on the tablets.

"No reason"? How about the fact that it was explicitly stated that something else was written on the tablets? Doesn't that qualify as a reason? Besides, unlike you, I'm not inclined to take the word of a sociopathic mass-murderer on faith.

[Quoted] "Exodus 34:27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
Exodus 34:28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant--the Ten Commandments."

You assume that 'he' refers to Moses. It would be more consistent with the rest of the passage if it referred to God. IT is stated that the words of the covenant were written by a he on the tablet.

Like Bill Clinton, you focus on a single word. For him, it was "is". For you, it is "he". But you take it out of context. When someone says something like "He did something and he did something else", it is obvious that the second "he" is the same as the first "he". If it is meant to be someone else, then it should be explicitly declared. You're not reading between the lines; you're reading out in space.

[Editor's note: he's also ignoring the fact that God specifically instructed Moses to "write down these words" after giving him the second set of commandments]

Their were many covenants made between God and Israel. The Ten Commandments were one covenant and the list given in Exodus 34, another.

The list given in Exodus 34 was the one that God explicitly instructed Moses to write on the tablets. The one given earlier is the one that everyone quotes. God says they were the same. He was lying.

Moses and God were both 'he's. Therefore it is either Moses being referred to as writing down a revised set of commandments or God writing down the same ones as before.

See previous rebuttal regarding your use of the word "he" out of context. You don't make your point stronger by repeating it.

As at the start of Exodus 34 we have God saying that he will write down the same commandments as were used before, it is logical to assume that Exodus 34:28 is referring to God writing down the commandments on the tablets.

It is "logical" to ignore the explicit text saying that something else was written on the tablets, simply because you don't want to admit that the Bible contradicts itself? How is that "logical"?

You are clinging to a specific point of view in order to create a contradiction when none is necessary.

I need not "cling" to anything. My interpretation is the only one that follows from the text. Your alternate interpretation is born out of desperation.

[Quoted] "Translation: "someone who agrees with me, and who you therefore assume to be some sort of acolyte"."

Actually, he says on his web page that he was inspired by you and a lot of what he wrote is very similar to what you have written. I was intending no disparagement of either of you. I was suggesting that you should feel flattered - imitation is, after all, the most sincere form of flattery.

I am glad to be a source of inspiration. However, that is not what you said. You said he is an imitator of me, thus suggesting that he is not thinking for himself. Inspiration and imitation are two entirely different things. Don't try to weasel out of admitting that you were indeed speaking in a disparaging manner.

It seems to me that you are rather paranoid. In the past I called you 'Wong' because I thought it was more polite to call you by your surname when we didn't really know each other. I didn't feel it was polite to address you as Mike. You responded by calling me a racist and a piece of 'chickenshit'.

I called you a chickenshit, not a racist IIRC, and I make no apologies for it [Editor's note: I actually did apologize at the time, but after receiving this E-mail and realizing that he defends Old Testament atrocities, I realized that he really is a chickenshit]. If you wanted to be polite to a stranger, you would call him "Mr. Wong", or "Michael". You would not call him "Wong", the way drill sergeants do. If I call you "Boyd", it is a deliberate term of disrespect. It is acceptable only between close friends, when the deliberate use of disrespectful terms can be considered a form of male bonding (eg. "Hey, you old bastard, how are you doing?"). If you, by your own admission, do not know someone very well, it is unacceptable to address him in a deliberately disrespectful way.

[Editor's note: He's obviously dredging up this completely irrelevant incident from the past (despite my earlier apology, which I would love to retract now that I know more about his attitudes) in order to paint me as an unreasonable person for the purposes of the Ad Hominem fallacy (attack the argument by attacking the man), even though he knows full well that the incident in question has nothing whatsoever to do with the current debate.

If you're curious about the story, here's what happened: several months before this exchange, I was in a very foul mood over an idiot on a sci-fi discussion board who thought that it would be fun to try to get my goat by flaming my wife, in an extremely virulent and crude fashion. Mr. Boyd happened to send some annoying Star Trek pseudoscience at the same time, and as a result of my emotional state, I over-reacted at his impolite salutation and his, shall we say, poor use of science. I apologized the next day and explained that he caught me in a volatile state, but he's obviously filed the incident away for future use in ad hominem attacks such as this one. Notice how he tries to paint the incident as proof of an ingrained character trait (I'm "paranoid"), even though he knows perfectly well why I was so volatile at the time. I'm sure he's quite proud of himself for having scored such a coup]

Here I'm suggesting that you should feel flattered about the fact that you have imitators and you think I'm attacking free thinking. Get a grip.

"Get a grip"? On what? Your habit of distorting the truth? Since when did I claim that your use of the term "imitator" constituted an attack on free thought? I only claimed that Bible thumpers are entirely too quick to assume that free thinkers are merely following a different leader. You still seem to be following that line of thought, so my point still stands.

[Quoted] "Mary Magdalene was not a disciple, therefore she hardly disproves my claim that none of Jesus' disciples were women."

Jesus had more than 12 disciples.

dis·ci·ple n
1. somebody who strongly believes in the teachings of a leader, a philosophy, or a religion, and tries to act according to them
2. dis·ci·ple or Dis·ci·ple one of the 12 original followers of Jesus Christ, according to the Bible

Mary most definitely falls under the first definition, though admittedly not under the second.

Sophistry. It was obvious that I was referring to the second definition of "disciple", not the first. The first definition is so loose that Jim Bakker would qualify.

She was the first person that Jesus appeared to after his resurrection. She was the one told to go spread the news about he resurrection. In John 19:25-27, Jesus is being crucified and only four women - Mary his mother, his mother's sister, Mary wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene - are there to comfort him. None of the men had the courage to turn up. In John 19:26, one of the women is described as 'the disciple whom he loved' - this is commonly agreed to be Mary Magdalene. Even if it is not, it is clearly a woman.

So? This is all a red-herring nitpick, since you know perfectly well that I was referring to the 12 Disciples. It's amazing how much nit-picking you can generate from the fact that I didn't capitalize "disciples" for you. Is it that hard for you to figure out what things mean in context? Must I make a sing-along version for you? How about a pop-up book? A picture of The Last Supper with the caption "where be the wimminfolk", perhaps?

[Editor's note: I've reworded the relevant article to idiot-proof it against such nitpicks in future. It took less than a minute to do so, and the major points of the article are unaffected, so I'm not sure what Mr. Boyd was hoping to accomplish. Oh well ... whatever raises his flagpole, I suppose ...]

[Quoted] "The fact that some women gained positions of power in Israel (a situation which God himself decried as evil in Isaiah 3:12) ..."

He doesn't say that all women in power are wrong.

Yes, he does. He lists his complaints against the Israelites, and one of them is the fact that women rule over them.

In the same verse, he says that 'Youths oppress my people' - does that mean that all youths are oppressing his people? Or that all youths are bad? No.

Of course those other things aren't attached to God's complaint, but the complaint itself still stands. Once again, you take things out of context and then interpret them in a bizarre fashion. Let's look at the phrase in context (Isaiah 3:11-12, NIV): "Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them! They will be paid back for what their hands have done. Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path." Does this sound like he thinks it's a good thing for women to rule over the people?

The Judges were people sent by God to guide and protect his people. There were female Judges. Therefore there were females anointed by God.

Which ones? Are you referring to Deborah, the prophetess who led Israel during their time of their punishment for doing "evil in the eyes of the LORD" in Judges 4? She settled disputes, but she never led anyone (she needed Barak to form and lead the army that would re-establish Israel's power). Nevertheless, she was technically chosen by God according to the text, so the point is taken. Can you think of any others?

[Quoted] "That depends on what you define as "high", doesn't it? He defines obedience to the laws of the Old Testament as "righteousness", whereas any thinking human being will see them for what they are: hatred and intolerance."

A hatred and intolerance of evil. As any perfectly good being would display and which we as imperfect beings should strive to obtain.

Wrong. Hatred is never noble. One should defend oneself from evil, but if you hate the enemy, then you are as bad as the enemy. Worse yet, if you define "evil" as anyone who opposes you even if they've never hurt anyone, then it is you who are evil. That is the problem with Biblical morality.

For example, God murdered all the first-born sons of Egypt. Were the little babies in their cribs "evil", worthy of hatred and death? God murdered the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah. There were undoubtedly small children and little babies in those cities. Were they "evil" as well, worthy of hatred and death? What did they do, to deserve death? How about the small children of Jericho, who were butchered by Israelite invaders at God's command? Were they "evil" too?

[Quoted] "By mercilessly butchering those who oppose God by not believing in him."

That was the way of the early Israelites because God wanted a people of his own to have a relationship with.

More hate-mongering nonsense. It was OK for the Israelites to commit unspeakable war crimes because it suited God's plans? How repugnant.

He was ensuring their survival and the survival of religion centred on him.

How disgustingly egocentric of you. The "survival of religion" required the survival of Judaism? What about Buddhism, Hinduism, aboriginal religions all over the world, or the religions of the Inca, the Aztecs, the Chinese? Religion would have survived quite nicely without Judaism and its monstrous war crimes.

More to the point, if any system of belief requires the massacre of defenseless women and children, then it deserves to die. The fact that, by your own admission, Judaism required such things is proof that I am correct, and that it was an unacceptably bloodthirsty belief system.

With the coming of Jesus, the status of 'God's people' was extended to everyone, not just the Jewish people, so killing non-believers purely because they do not believe is clearly wrong.

Ah, so it was right to kill non-believers before Jesus came, and it was wrong afterwards? What a lovely brand of moral relativism you have. In other words, if God says it's OK, then it's OK. If God changes his mind, then suddenly, it's not OK. Either way, you have no real moral compass of your own; you simply obey authority. If you had a genuine moral compass, you would understand that "right and wrong" are completely independent of the edicts of any individual being. If God changes his mind again and says it's right to kill nonbelievers again, would you accept that?

It contradicts the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 - 'go and make disciples of all nations.' If you kill someone, it's a little tricky to make a disciple of them, isn't it? Which is, amongst other reasons, why the Inquisition, the Spanish conquest of South America, etc. were totally wrong.

The Inquisitions, the Crusades, the genocide in the Americas, the subjugation of Africa and other Christian atrocities were evil because people suffered and died. The fact that this impeded their conversion to Christianity is irrelevant. Don't you get it? It is evil to make people suffer and die. If you need some goofy reason like "we should convert them first" in order to convince yourself that it's evil, then you don't really understand good and evil.

[Quoted] "Obedience over morality"

No, obedience of morality.

What?!?!? Obedience to a mass murderer is obedience to "morality"?

[Quoted] "Classic militaristic, amoral mindset."

We are clearly called to follow God's moral code. This disagrees with the humanist moral code. That doesn't make it wrong. If anything, it makes the humanist code flawed, particularly as it centres everything on people, putting them first, rather than God.

Yes, the humanist code centres on people. It says that anyone who hurts people for any reason other than immediate self-defense is evil. God's moral code, on the other hand, centres on his enormous need for self-gratification. It says that anyone who fails to waste most of his life worshipping God is evil.

I challenge you to explain why it is wrong to centre a moral code upon the happiness and well-being of human beings.

If you can't come up with any reason other than the usual nonsense about how we should focus all our energies on worshipping a mass murderer instead of improving the world for humanity, then you will only prove my point for me.

[Quoted] "You define "good" incorrectly. God's standards in the Old Testament make it clear that he demands mindless obedience and loyalty from us, not "good" behaviour."

Mark 12:28-34 - 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' is described as the greatest commandment.

[Editor's note: Mark 12:28 confirms that the first commandment is to love God, not your neighbour. If it suits God's purposes for you to butcher your neighbour, as it did in Old Testament times, then so be it. How nice]

In other words, you agree with me that God wants mindless obedience and loyalty, not good behaviour in any absolute sense. If he wants us to be nice to each other, we should be nice to each other. If he wants us to mercilessly butcher unbelievers, we should mercilessly butcher unbelievers.

Note that it says 'with all your mind' - we are called to use our heads, not forget we have brains. Many of the Proverbs were about wisdom.

Proverbs 2:6 'For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.'

Proverbs 2:12 'Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men.'

Proverbs 3:13-14 'Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold.'

Proverbs 3:21 'My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight.'

The Bible abuses the word "wisdom" just as it abuses the word "evil". In the Bible, "wisdom" means mindless obedience to God, while "evil" and "foolishness" both mean disobedience to God. As Proverbs 1:7 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge", and Proverbs 15:33 echoes the sentiment by saying that "The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom". What kind of lunatic says that knowledge and wisdom come from fear?

If you want to play a game of listing quotes, then why not look at the heart of the matter? When you read it thoroughly, it becomes very clear that the Bible differentiates between the wisdom of the world (ie- real wisdom) and spiritual wisdom (ie- mindless obedience to God).

Matthew 11:25 (Jesus praises God for deliberately concealing himself from the wise and learned, as he would later in Luke 10:21): At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

1 Corinthians 1:19-20 (contempt for the "wisdom of the world"): "For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

1 Corinthians 1:27 (God chooses fools over the wise): "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

1 Corinthians 2:4-5 (Paul admits that he uses parlour tricks instead of logical arguments in order to make his point, because he doesn't want people to come to God through reason, but rather, through mindless faith): "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power."

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (Paul exhorts others to become fools so that they will become wise, which is simply another way of differentiating between worldly wisdom and spiritual wisdom): "Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.""

2 Corinthians 1:12 (yet more contempt for "worldly wisdom"): "Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God's grace."

[Quoted] "As far as he's concerned, our "moral" failings have nothing to do with violence and hatred (of which he approves),"

Deuteronomy 5:17 - 'You shall not murder.'

Proverbs 24:1-2 - 'Do not envy wicked men, do not desire their company; for their hearts plot violence and their lips talk about making trouble.'

Proverbs 24:17 - 'Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice.'

Matthew 5:7 - 'Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.'

Matthew 5:9 - 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Matthew 5:21-22 - 'You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement," But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement.'

Matthew 5:43-45 - 'You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven

Mark 12:31 - 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'

Romans 12:9-10 - 'Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honour one another above yourselves.

1 Corinthians 13:13 - 'And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.'

Sounds like God approved a lot more of peace, forgiveness and love.

Yadda yadda yadda. God can say whatever he likes, but actions speak louder than words, and his credo is "do as I say, not as I do". God himself is a mass murderer, and he repeatedly ordered his followers to mercilessly butcher their enemies, including helpless women and children, as well as prisoners of war.

Good and evil are not like mathematics: you can't cancel out acts of evil by saying the occasional good thing. If a man commits murder, he becomes a murderer. He will always be a murderer, and he can preach all the nice things he likes, but that fact will not change. Besides, do you really want to play the game of duelling quotes? It's a game you'll lose. See my big reference page on Biblical violence.

There are times when we should hate and when violence is necessary. We should hate evil - to be apathetic about it is just as bad as supporting it. We should be willing to take a stand against it - do you deny that fighting Hitler was the right thing to do?

Fighting Hitler was the right thing to do, because we were defending ourselves against his aggression. However, hating the Germans and the Japanese was the wrong thing to do. That's why moral people feel some sense of regret about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the firebombings of Tokyo, the use of flamethrowers to exterminate villagers hiding in caves on Okinawa, the punitive obliteration of Dresden, etc.

It is never moral to hate. Hate is evil, but people like you don't understand that, because you lack morality.

What is wrong with obedience? Obedience to good, obedience to God, is not something to be attacked.

God is a mass murderer. Obedience to a mass murderer is unacceptable.

Surely you strive to follow the humanist moral code. You try to be obedient to it.

The humanist moral code is an idea, not an entity. Moreover, it has never condoned mass murder or war crimes.

[Editor's note: He's got the cart before the horse. Obedience to a set of values and ideals should come after analyzing them and deciding that they are worth obeying. In his case, he obeys the values without bothering to analyze them beforehand, and he is incapable of forming a justification for those ideals which is not circular, ie- which does not resort to using the assumption of God's perfection to justify the perfection of God's words and actions]

We try to be obedient to the laws of our country. If we are not, then we are punished. God's Laws are different only in that they are always right and infinitely more important to follow.

Law and morality are two different things. A truly moral person has values based on his knowledge of ethics, not his fear of punishment. At one time, the law in America stated that it was acceptable to own slaves. In fact, the Bible also says it's acceptable to own slaves. Does this mean it was right at the time?

[Editor's note: how can anyone say that the laws of the Bible are "always right" with a straight face? When Exodus 21:17 solemnly tells us to kill a boy who swears at his parents, is this "right"?]

[Quoted] "We apparently insist on thinking for ourselves on occasion, thus making us "evil". The Old Testament defines knowledge and free thought as "evil", thus making the seeking of knowledge a sin."

That's not true. Knowledge is repeatedly praised. People are told to think for themselves, rather than mindlessly following legalism.

The Old Testament defines "knowledge" and "wisdom" as obedience to God. Its definition of knowledge has nothing to do with any objective definition of knowledge.

[Editor's note: And of course, it bears repeating that the "original sin" of Adam and Eve was to eat from the Tree of Knowledge]

Pride is the thing that causes us to sin, not a desire for knowledge. Pride that makes us think we're as good as God, or we know better than God, or that we deserve to know all things right here and now.

It is not pride, but knowledge that lead us to recognize that we are as good as God, or that we know better than God. Very few of us are mass murderers, therefore the vast majority of people in the world are morally superior to God. Most of us recognize that the sky cannot be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4) and that [flying] insects have six legs instead of four (Leviticus 11:23) and that the value of pi is roughly 3.14, not 3.00 (2 Chronicles 4:2), therefore we know more than God. The God of the Bible is both evil and ignorant (or more accurately, the humans who invented him and then wrote the Bible were both evil and ignorant).

God hates evil and rejoices in good. Is that wrong?

Yes, when you define "evil" as free thought and "good" as mindless obedience to a mass murdering sociopath.

Damndest would be quite appropriate, since they were twisting the Bible to suit their own ends, or misinterpreting it our of ignorance and, in doing so, following the devil and not God. Those things were carried out by Christians, but there was nothing Christian about what they were doing. Christians have been responsible for some truly terrible atrocities and still are, especially in South Africa or here at home in Northern Ireland, but that doesn't mean that the things they are doing are Christian.

Every single thing they ever did was done in the Old Testament with God's approval or in many cases, his direct participation. Since you yourself pointed out that Jesus did not repudiate the laws of the Old Testament, you have essentially helped me show that it is in fact Christian to do such things.

[Quoted] "If he makes any good points, then by all means, explain them. Otherwise, don't waste my time evoking his name. If I actually went out and read everything that religious zealots had instructed me to read since I put up that website, I would have no time to eat, sleep, or work."

He makes good points on every page, so it would take a long time for me to explain them all and I'm not sure how good job I would do. If you only ever read one book on Christianity (aside form the Bible), then this would have to be it. You have heard of CS Lewis before, haven't you? I'm used to just about everyone over here knowing who he is, but I'm not sure how well he's known in the Americas.

Excuses. You can't produce a solid argument from that book, so you shouldn't even be mentioning it.

You often tell people to do your homework. Surely you should be doing yours? If you wish to argue against Christianity, surely you must make some effort to understand it? The Bible is a big book and difficult to understand without help. It can be easy to take things out of context, etc.

[Editor's note: notice how he tries to imply that I'm ignorant of the situation, ie- I haven't done my "homework", because I haven't read this "Mere Christianity" book (an apologist piece, designed to get lost sheep to return to the fold), even though the only relevant evidence in this debate is the Bible itself]

I've done my homework. I've read most of the Bible. I don't need to read someone else's interpretation of it, particularly when that person is a mindless follower of religious dogma. Besides, contrary to your expectation, I actually have seen "Mere Christianity" before, and I read the first couple of chapters; enough to see that his proof for the Bible's validity was circular and therefore obviously not the product of rational thinking.

I challenge you to produce a good argument from that book. Otherwise, stop mentioning it.

Reading a good book like Mere Christianity can make things a lot clearer and help you find the major themes of the religion. If you want to attack Christianity, you should read at least open book about it, and you wouldn't go far wrong making it Mere Christianity. It's not too long and not too expensive. Only a couple of dollars more than a paperback SW novel I'm sure. If you are willing to put so much time and effort into making this website, why not put a bit of time and effort into making sure that what you are doing and saying is accurate?

You define disagreement with your dogmatic viewpoint as inaccuracy. However, aside from your nitpick about a female Judge (which I did not need "Mere Christianity" to verify), you have thus far failed to locate any inaccuracies.

More importantly, you nitpick red herrings and avoid the major thrust of my argument. My key point is that God is evil (he is a mass murderer and has encouraged others to commit atrocities) and that the laws he outlined in the Old Testament are immoral (condoning slavery among many other horrors). You refuse to admit that God is a murderer, with some ridiculous excuse that it's possible to kill a defenseless child without murdering him.

[Editor's note: read further to see where he attempts to differentiate between "killing" defenseless women and children and "murdering" them]

"God's love for us all" is not a tenet.

ten·et n
any of a set of established and fundamental beliefs, especially one relating to religion or politics (formal)

God loving us is surely a belief? Us being created in order to have a loving relationship with him is surely a belief?

Only if you use a truly bizarre definition of "love" in which it is possible to love someone and yet promise to torture him for all eternity if he doesn't obey you.

Murder is illegal killing. Wrongful killing. God explicitly said "Do not murder." He does not encourage murder.

See my big list of Biblical violence quotes. He does encourage murder, unless you think is it not wrongful to butcher little babies. Moreover, he also commits murder, and on a huge scale.

Violence is only encouraged where it is necessary to stop evil.

Only if you define "evil" as disobedience to a mass murderer.

I suspect that you are largely referring to the Israelites here during the Old Testament. If so, then those actions were necessary to preserve their identity as God's people.

In other words, you defend those horrifying atrocities, thus demonstrating that you are utterly immoral, devoid of conscience and ethics. Again, you argue that war crimes are acceptable if they suit God's plans, which is a ridiculous defense.

God did not ant his message pollute by other false Gods. Neither did he want his people overrun by invaders, unless they turned from him and needed reminding of who was taking care of them.

The Israelites were the invaders. They invaded Canaan, not the other way around.

[Editor's note: notice how he admits that God was willing to punish "his people" if they "turned from him and needed reminding" of who was in charge. It's utterly amazing that he can refer to this as "unconditional love", but he does]

It is important to remember that in OT times, the Israelites were God's chosen people, which is why he looked after them, but since NT times, everyone is considered to be part of God's people - Jew and Gentile.

So it was right to commit horrible atrocities in the Old Testament, but it isn't right now? Doesn't it occur to you that right and wrong are not concepts that change on a whim? It was always wrong to commit horrible atrocities.

[Quoted] "and promises of even greater purges in the future."

If you are talking about the final battles against Satan and the forces of evil, then I really have no problem with violence in that case.

So you want to fight the forces of evil? But the Bible defines "evil" as a lack of faith in God. Does this mean you are freely admitting that you condone violence against non-believers?

It is something that will be even more necessary than us taking up arms against Hitler. Or do you think that that lesser fight against evil was unjustified?

Hitler had nothing to do with the Biblical definition of "evil". He believed in God, and he did nothing which hadn't already been done by the Old Testament Israelites at God's command.

[Editor's note: his repeated attempts to tie my criticism of Christianity to Hitler are annoying and fallacious, particularly since Hitler was a Christian]

I define love in several ways, depending on which love you are talking about. There are, after all, four forms of love. Eros, Platonic, Agape and the other one, whose name I can never remember. Eros is the love of a man for a woman (or vice versa). Platonic is obviously love between friends. Agape is self-sacrificing love. The other one is simply liking something, e.g. saying "I love chocolate." Agape love is the one most commonly shown by God.

Is that the love he showed when he butchered millions of people in the Great Flood, or when he slaughtered the little babies of Egypt? Perhaps it was agape love that he was showing when he massacred the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe it's a special kind of love, which can only be demonstrated through the brutal massacre of a town's entire population, as demonstrated at Jericho. Perhaps his "agape love" was best demonstrated when he put down a popular uprising in Numbers 16 by slaughtering its leaders along with their wives and children. Oh, wait! I've got it: he demonstrates his special love by promising to torture us for all eternity if we don't obey him. Right?

John 15:13 - 'Greater love has no-one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.'

This is the kind of love Jesus showed when he dies for us on the cross. It's the kind of love the disciples showed when they were beaten, tortured, imprisoned, stones and crucified for preaching about God. I define love as a willingness to give up oneself to do good for another.

That is altruism. God is not altruistic; he doesn't care about the good of mankind, and in fact, he repeatedly admonishes us not to concern ourselves with our own well-being. He cares only about his own glorification.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 defines love very well: 'Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.'

And what makes you think that this bears any resemblance to God's behaviour toward us? Explain all the massacres!

In OT times he killed (not murdered) people who were a threat to his chosen people. We are now all his people.

Please explain why you believe that the slaughter of defenseless women, children, and prisoners of war is not murder.

God values knowledge.

Knowledge of him, not knowledge of the world.

Obedience to good is no bad thing.

Obedience to a mass-murdering psychopath is a bad thing.

God is perfect and the creator of all things.

God is hardly perfect, unless you think there's something "perfect" about pitiless acts of mass-murderer.

[Editor's note: don't you love the way fundamentalists ignore points, such as my vast list of examples of God's immorality, and simply repeat catch-phrases they've been taught to mindlessly repeat? I list a number of reasons why God is not perfect, and he responds with "uh ... uh ... but God is perfect."]

We are not perfect and not creators of anything. He is the centre of everything and is therefore worthy of praise. He is the most important thing in existence and should be put first. Us putting ourselves first is the highest form of arrogance and the kind of pride that has lead to so much sin.

Non sequitur. Power and pre-eminence do not automatically deserve praise, nor do they confer moral authority. We feel compassion for animals being tortured in research labs and so we are repulsed by unnecessarily cruel animal experiments. The fact that we have unquestionable power over these animals is irrelevant to the ethics of the situation.

God is a pitiless mass murderer. We cannot condone or forgive his evil simply because he supposedly has great power.

If We put God first, we will start obeying his laws. When we do that, we will treat one another better. The first leads to the second.

Wrong. Many of God's laws demand that we treat one another horribly, with religious intolerance and death penalties for minor offenses such as swearing at your parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9) and working on Sunday (Exodus 31:15). They even demand death for completely victimless "crimes" such as worshipping other Gods (Exodus 22:20) and homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13).

Better treatment of each other, however, doe snot necessarily lead to worship of God and obedience to his laws.

Who gives a damn whether good behaviour leads to worship of God? Good behaviour is worthwhile on its own merits, unless you have no ethics.

[Quoted] "Perhaps you could answer why a God who supposedly loves us has no interest whatsoever in our happiness or fulfillment,"

He has every interest in it. It's a little thing called an eternity in Heaven.

Which is unverifiable, and which requires misery here on Earth for some reason.

His greatest concern is getting us to Heaven. Along the way, we might suffer here on earth, but this a temporary thing and nothing compared to the joy of being in Heaven.

Why does he require us to suffer on Earth in order to make him happy and let us into heaven? Does our suffering make him happy? Is that his "agape love"?

[Editor's note: He earlier said that he thought the Inquisitioners were not true Christians, but by his own words, he effectively defends them here! The inquisitioners did not simply kill people; they attempted to torture them into confessing their sins and asking for God's mercy. Since Mr. Boyd claims that it's perfectly acceptable to cause suffering "here on Earth" in order to ensure the "joy of being in Heaven", he is tacitly agreeing with the medieval Inquisitioners, who used the exact same justification for their horrifying actions. I reiterate: this guy is scary]

His concern is for our spiritual well being, because it is that which will get us into Heaven, not our physical well being.

Why must he force us to sacrifice the latter before he'll grant us the former?

You are concerned about the present and the few years surrounding it. He is concerned about where we will spend eternity. I much prefer an eternity of bliss, preceded by a few years of some suffering to a few years of pleasure followed by an eternity of suffering.

So in other words, your entire concept of ethics is based around your selfish desire for an "eternity of bliss", and if you have to cause suffering to those around you on Earth in order to get there, then you'll do it. Right? Suppose God comes to you and says that Judgement Day is nigh, so you must go to a nearby atheist convention and massacre everyone with a machine gun in order to prove your worth to him. Would you do it?

[Quoted] "but instead, he only cares about our worship for him. Perhaps you could answer why a God who supposedly loves us has made it clear that it is a conditional love;"

Err, where are you getting this from? God's love is UNCONDITIONAL.

[Editor's note: this comes from the same guy who had earlier admitted that God punished his people whenever they stopped worshipping them, in order to "remind" them of who's in charge]

Wrong. If we refuse to worship him, he will kill us and torture us for all eternity. Read the damned Bible, and if you're too lazy, then read my big reference page on Biblical violence.

If it was conditional on us obeying him, why did he save the life of an adulteress?

So she would worship him. If she worshipped Baal, what do you think he would have done to her?

Why did he spend his time with sinners?

See previous answer. None of them were Baal worshippers.

Why was he so angry with supposedly righteous people?

He was always angry at somebody. Scarcely a passage goes by in the Bible without God's anger burning against people.

Why did he call David a man after his own heart, despite all his failings?

Because he mercilessly killed heathens. That's the sort of thing that makes God happy.

Because when we fail, God wants to give us another chance to come back to him because he loves us. Why else would he have died on the cross?

Because the Romans nailed him there. It sure as hell didn't sound like a well-laid plan; don't you remember him screaming "why have you forsaken me?"

If his love was conditional on obeying laws, then we would only have the Old Testament, where obedience to the law seems to be the way to Heaven.

And a truly horrifying set of laws it is!

But we don't just have the OT. We have the New Testament as well, where it is made clear that righteousness in the Law is irrelevant and that it is through God's grace and love that we are redeemed and go to Heaven. No matter who you are, no matter what you've done, God loves you and gives you a chance to go to heaven.

As long as you worship him. If you don't, then you will die and be tortured forever, because God's love is unconditional. Right?

[Quoted] "he only loves us if we mindlessly obey him, but if we don't, then he hates us, he will slaughter us, and he will condemn us to eternal torture."

He doesn't hate us, he hates the sin.

He defines "sin" as disobedience. He doesn't care whether we hurt one another (since he repeatedly orders us to do just that); he only cares whether we worship him. The New Testament doesn't change any of that; in fact, it crystallizes it, by admitting openly that he doesn't care how you behave, as long as you worship him.

Unless we renounce the sin, then we can never go to heaven because evil cannot exist in the presence of perfect good. It would destroy us. We wants nothing more than to welcome us into his arms, but he can't unless that sin is removed and he can't take it away unless we ask him to.

We should ask a mass-murdering sociopath to take away our sins? Doesn't he already have enough sins of his own?

Alongside perfect love, there is perfect justice. If there is sin, it will be punished. But God is willing to suffer that punishment for us - remember, he went to Hell for us. All of us. Sinners and non-sinners alike. All it takes is a couple of words to him - 'Please forgive me' and we are redeemed and able to enter into his presence.

But if you refuse to worship him and utter those words to a contemptible mass murdering sociopath, then his "perfect love" will cause him to torture you for all eternity. Nice guy.

[Editor's note: it's tiresome, isn't it? Fundamentalists always spout the same catch-phrases regardless of what the subject of the argument is. They don't even bother modifying them to suit the particular subject under discussion; when threatened or confused, they simply fall back on their indoctrination. For some time now, he's been simply spouting standard-issue lines which in no way address my arguments, except to deny their validity without giving evidence. This is obviously not a particularly intelligent young man, but one learns to expect that from fundamentalists. Indoctrination techniques are not exactly the best way to teach critical thinking]

He's done the hard work for us, because he loves us. We don't deserve any of what he's done for us, but because of love, he did it anyway.

Correction: we don't deserve any of what he's done TO us. We don't deserve the suffering, and we don't deserve eternal torture if we won't worship him, and the Israelites Old Testament victims (particularly the defenseless women and children) didn't deserve to die simply because they worshipped the wrong God.

I do not see God as abusive because Christianity says he is not.

In other words, you ignore all of the objective evidence that he is unremittingly abusive, because your religious doctrine tells you to. Classic example of mindless obedience to dogma.

If I believed that he was, then I would not be a Christian. You are asking me to contradict myself and my believes. I would much rather continue to believe in the truth and follow he who loves me (and you and everyone, regardless of whether you love him or not).

Let me get this straight: you would rather continue to worship an unrepentant mass murdering sociopath than accept principles of ethics which would lead to a more just and kind world?

In my experience, what the world calls a good or bad Christian is based, not on Christian values, but on the values of the world.

Explain what is intrinsically wrong with those values (ie- something wrong with the values themselves, rather than the mere fact that they fail to serve the intentions of your mass-murdering sociopathic God).

Values we are called to reject.

The fact that you reject ethics is quite obvious.

We are God's people and will be judged according to his values.

The values of a mass murdering sociopath.

What he defines as a good or bad Christian is much more important than what the world defines as good or bad.

You are very concerned about the opinion of a mass murdering sociopath. I, on the other hand, feel that the opinion of a mass murdering sociopath is worthless.

I strive to be a good Christian by his standards. Whether I am or not, I do not know and it is not for anyone here on earth to judge.

Of course. Why hold yourself accountable to real ethical principles, based on the real world, when you can follow a mass murdering sociopath instead?

[Editor's note: He's spouting an old fundamentalist line: "humans have no right to judge". However, that line is meaningless because no one, God or man, has the "right" to judge. The authority to judge and punish criminals for wrongdoing is not a "right" conferred on the powerful, but an unfortunate necessity of human society. We judge and punish one another because we must, because justice does not enforce itself. If God actually enforced justice the way he claimed to, we wouldn't need to have police officers, and we wouldn't have needed to send soldiers to Europe in order to fight Hitler. But of course, God has no interest in worldly justice; as long as you worship him, his attitude toward human beings in pain seems to be "fuck 'em".]

The Old Testament is a litany of horrors, yes. A litany of the horrors and atrocities that people have committed against God and against each other, despite all that he has done.

Obviously, you didn't read it. Again, I suggest you read my big reference on Biblical violence. God is the most prolific murderer of the Bible, and he also commits the very first murder of the Bible. In every sense of the word, he introduced murder into the world.

[Editor's note: in case you're not sure which murder I'm referring to, I'm speaking of Adam. Adam was born immortal, with the freedom to eat of the Tree of Life which grants immortality. However, God promised Adam that he would "surely die" if he committed the victimless crime of eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Adam ate from that tree, and God promptly barred him from the Tree of Life, thus ensuring that he would die. This is arguably murder, unless you feel that Adam's life lasted so long that his eventual death cannot be connected to God. Of course, if you choose that interpretation, then it would mean that God was wrong when he said that Adam would "surely die" if he disobeyed, and that Satan was right when he said that he wouldn't]

He loved his people and tried to guide and protect him, yet they kept falling away.

Who the hell wouldn't want to fall away from a mass murdering sociopath?

[Editor's note: It amazes me how many Christian fundamentalists and even mainstream Christians can read the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Great Flood, and the fall of Jericho without recognizing that these were all acts of mass murder. Do they really need someone to "connect the dots" for them?]

That is the true horror of the Old Testament. That God's beloved people should so often have rejected him, and then had to be rescued and given chance after chance after chance to follow him.

Actually, they repeatedly tried to gain their freedom, only to be repeatedly forced back into slavery to God by horrible punishments such as the Great Flood and the repeated plagues and disasters suffered by Israel whenever its people disobeyed him.

Not only is God's love conditional despite your bizarre claim that it isn't, but when you claim that all of the Earth's people are now God's people, you actually make the situation worse. In the Old Testament, God didn't seem to care what the rest of the world's people believed in, unless they came into direct contact with his Israelites. The distant peoples of China and India and the Americas were ignored completely (gee, maybe it's because the priests who wrote the Bible didn't know they existed).

Anyway, God's "chosen people" were subjected to a peculiar form of "love": they were repeatedly punished with horrible plagues and disasters whenever they tried to gain freedom of religion. If the New Testament declares all people to be "God's people" as you say, then we are now all condemned to the same stifling atmosphere of religious intolerance that permeated ancient Israel. Small wonder, then, that Christians have been so intolerant throughout their entire history!

Continue to Jonathan Boyd, Page 3

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: