Hate Mail

Jonathan Boyd, Page 6

September 2, 2001:

Does it say that this happens because Ham is black? No. There are many black people in jail. Were they put there because they were black, or because they committed a crime?

[Editor's note: what a loaded question he asks! Any black man who has been stopped in a car by a police officer without reasonable cause will argue that while there are many black men in prison for committing crimes, there are also many black man in prison for simply being black. When San Diego Chargers football player Shawn Lee was pulled over, handcuffed, and detained along with his girlfriend for half an hour in 1997 and then released after the police checked up on him, was it because he had committed a crime, or was it because he made the mistake of being a black man driving an expensive vehicle? If such a highly visible and affluent black man can be treated in this way without provocation or apology, doesn't it make you wonder how other black men are treated?]

If a black man happens to be in prison, he is theoretically there because he committed a crime (although racial discrimination in police work and criminal prosecution is well documented, particularly in the southern US states). However, if their children and their childrens' children were also put in there because of his crime, then it would be a gross injustice. And if this practice were kept up for so long that he had billions of descendants who constituted a race, then it would effectively be racism. The original root cause is irrelevant, because the end-result is racial discrimination, which is racism.

You are taking an event and assuming the reason for it without reading what the reason is in the passage.

I don't care what the reason is for Noah's curse! I care about the effect of that curse, which is to condemn entire races to subservience. If you discriminate against a race of people, it doesn't matter what you claim your reasons are. In fact, most racists do precisely what you're doing: they claim that racial discrimination is acceptable if it is supposedly motivated by something other than race.

[Editor's note: People who discriminate against blacks claim that it's not because they're black, but because they're more likely to commit crime. People who discriminate against Jews claim that it's not because they're Jewish, but because they have shady business practices. The Israeli government, which discriminates against the Palestinians, claims that it's because of their racial and religious "right" to nationhood and their religious claim upon the piece of land upon which the Palestinians had the temerity to be living in 1948. It's all a smokescreen; discrimination against a race is racism, regardless of what excuses you use]

Uh, surely the fact that he is made a slave to his brothers, people who would share his skin colour, destroy the argument that black people were chosen by God to be slaves to white people?

They didn't share his skin colour. He was dark-skinned, and according to the Bible, all dark-skinned people descended from him. There was even an entire race called the Canaanites, who were specifically descended from Ham's son Canaan. Scientifically, this is idiotic of course, but the entire Bible is scientifically idiotic.

I didn't claim that these passages said that slavery was wrong. I said that they promoted a certain standard of behaviour towards others, particularly foreigners. As slaves could only be foreigners, that means that this code of practice must apply to slaves.

It condones slavery. That's the point, and it is utterly unaffected by your red herrings about whether slaves were supposed to be well treated.

Where are the words condoning slavery?

"From them you may buy slaves"- Leviticus 25:44. It is pointless to keep arguing with you when I shove an example in your face and you act as though you'd never seen it.

[Editor's note: I included the same quote in my previous E-mail. He appears to have selective blindness]

God does not condone divorce, he does however provide guidelines for it because he sees that it will inevitably happen. Similarly, he does not condone slavery, but provides guidelines on how to treat slaves because he knows people will take them.

Wrong. God does condone both divorce and slavery, or he would make them illegal. Don't you know what the word "condone" means?

I already covered this in my previous post. God puts limits on slavery.

But he does not make it illegal, which is the only acceptable "limit". The fact that he "limits" it to non-Israelites merely adds racism into the mix, rather than mitigating the crime.

Don't make slaves out of your own people and treat slaves well. An Israelite slave would have been very different to the modern image of a slave.

Actually, it would seem that you are simply ignorant of the history of slavery. In ancient Rome, slaves were not only supposed to be treated in a humane fashion, but they could even attain positions of power. Much of the Roman civil service was made up of slaves. Nevertheless, slavery in all its forms, including the Roman form, is considered barbaric by modern standards because it is wrong to treat a human being as property.

The Bible says of a slave, "he is your property". The Bible condones slavery. The Bible is barbaric.

[Justifying Exodus 21:2-4] Because the owner provided the women, she is not released until she too has served 6 years

It's amazing that you can discuss an "owner" of human beings without recognizing the blatant immorality of the situation. It's amazing that you can discuss the fact that she cannot be "released" until she has "served 6 years" while simultaneously claiming that Israelite slaves weren't really held captive. Your self-contradictions are piling up.

But they are also told not to mistreat foreigners, which would include slaves. God doesn't like them beating their slaves, but is giving them a chance to change their ways, rather than punishing tem straight away.

Wrong. In Exodus 21:20-21, God explicitly says that a man will suffer no punishment whatsoever for beating a slave, as long as the slave survives. This isn't a "chance to change their ways"- it is gross injustice and condonement of not only slavery, but also the physical abuse of slaves.

[Editor's note: he's ignoring the context in which the words were spoken. Back then, it was not considered "mistreatment" to beat slaves, as demonstrated most shockingly by the Exodus 21:20-21 quote. Today, however, it is considered mistreatment to own slaves at all, and it would be considered cruel and inhumane to beat them]

[Quoted] "Exodus 22:3 (Thieves who can't make restitution must be sold into slavery)"

A punishment for criminals.

I don't believe it. You're actually willing to stand up in public and say that slavery is an acceptable punishment for theft?

[Quoted] "Ephesians 6:5 (Paul reminds slaves to respect, fear, and obey their masters"

Did you read the rest of the passage to discover why, rather than just taking it and deciding that it must be because slavery is right?

Yes, I read the rest of the passage. And no, this is hardly the only piece of evidence I have for Biblical condonement of slavery. In fact, there is not one word in the entire Bible which prohibits slavery of anyone but an Israelite.

[Editor's note: who the hell cares what Paul's reason is for discouraging slaves from seeking their freedom? This guy clearly can't see the forest for the trees]

The reason is given in verses 6-8 and instructions to masters given in verse 9:

'Obey them not only to win their favour when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. [Editor's note: I fail to see how this constitutes an acceptable reason to encourage slavery]

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both Master and your is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him.' [Editor's note: Paul shared the conventional view of his era that it was OK to beat slaves for misbehaving; his idea of an unjust slave owner was one who beat them even if they didn't misbehave. This is seen clearly in 1 Peter 2:20, where he differentiates between a deserved beating and an undeserved beating]

And where, in that quote, did it condemn slavery itself? Does Paul say that slaves should be freed immediately? Does Paul say that slavery is unjust in all its forms? Does Paul say that slave owners are inherently immoral? No. He says none of those things. Instead, he tells both slaves and slave owners to behave themselves before God, when he should be telling them that no human being should ever be enslaved. He condones slavery.

[Quoted] "1 Timothy 6:1 (It would be bad for slaves to disrespect their masters"

Did I not already quote this passage to you? Look again at the reason. It is not because slavery is good, but because good behaviour can further the cause of slavery. These commands are specifically to Christians, remember, who are going to be trying to spread their faith.

"Good behaviour can further the cause of slavery?" What the hell is wrong with you? Slavery is evil! There are no good forms and bad forms of slavery, and there is no ethical way to further its cause! The only proper way to address a slave owner is to put him in prison, and then tell him to go fuck himself.

[Editor's note: the idea of a well behaved slave is repugnant. He's basically saying that "good behaviour" on the part of slaves (read: obedience to their masters) is a good thing, even though it helps the slave owner. I can't believe anyone would stand up and publicly countenance anything which helps slavery persist, or which increases the prosperity of slave owners]

It does not condone slavery. Can you point out one passage where it says 'Slavery is good!'?

I don't have to. You really don't understand the meaning of the word "condone", do you? I suggest a good English dictionary; to condone something is to permit it. You don't have to praise it; you merely have to permit it, and the Bible permits slavery.

[Editor's note: our society does not permit slavery. For this and many other reasons, our society is more moral than the Bible]

It lays down standards for the treatment of slaves, puts restrictions on who to take as slaves. Like divorce, it is something God prefers didn't happen, but lays down guidelines knowing it will happen, so that as little wrong is done as possible.

Again, you obviously have no idea what the word "condone" means. By failing to make it a punishable offense to own or even beat slaves, the Bible condones both slavery and physical abuse of slaves.

You are exceedingly cynical. Why such distrust?

Trust is earned, not given away for no reason. Your words have not given me any reason to trust your integrity. Instead, they have made me realize that you are a seriously disturbed religious bigot, who shamelessly defends Biblical massacres of women and children such as the massacre at Jericho, Ai, and a host of other cities, as well as the senseless slaughter at Sodom and Gomorrah and the incredible mass-murder of the Great Flood.

[Quoted] this rule applies to slaves that have run to you and away from foreign masters

Actually, I believe you have got it wrong. You do not appear to have noticed that the whole of verse 9 reads 'When you are encamped against your enemies, keep away from everything impure.' The next 5 verses detail rules concerning uncleanness in the camp. Slaves taking refuge with you does not fall under this category.

"Refuge" from what? I thought you said that slavery in Israel was not unjust. Refuge is shelter or sanctuary from danger or persecution, which would not be necessary if slavery were not unjust.

There is no reason to assume that verses 15-16 apply only to slaves of foreign masters.

Sure there is: the fact that slaves are not permitted to go free in Israel until their owners release them. Didn't you read any of those quotes I listed in my previous message? You're basically saying that slaves are free in Israel; they need only walk away from their masters. That's ridiculous; the definition of "slave" simply does not permit any such freedom, and the Bible itself differentiates quite clearly between slaves and free men.

The only exceptions would be an exceptionally abusive slave owner who violates even the loose restrictions of the era (by beating a slave to death), or a foreign master, since foreigners are basically treated as non-entities.

I'm sure you are aware that one examines evidence and forms a conclusion form it, rather than starting from a conclusion and trying to get the evidence to fit it?

Of course I'm aware. Too bad you ignore your own advice. You start with the assumption that God is perfect, and everything else flows from that assumption.

The Bible fails to condemn slavery, and God's laws fail to abolish it. Therefore, God and the Bible condone slavery. You cannot argue a point about God's perfection by assuming that he's perfect. I present evidence that he is not perfect, and you answer by saying that since he's perfect, I must be misinterpreting the evidence. Does the term "circular logic" mean anything to you?

There is no evidence that it applies only to slaves form foreign masters. IT does not make any reference to foreign masters.

I can't believe you're actually attempting to hold onto this ridiculous position. Even if it was true that slaves could seek sanctuary if they could only escape their captivity, how would that change the fact that they are slaves, or the fact that they are held in captivity?

Black slaves who escaped their owners during the era of the American slave trade could also look for sanctuary, and they often received it. Does this mean that we should look back with warm nostalgia upon that time? Slavery is evil in all its forms. Your attempts to define Israelite slavery practices as a "good" form of slavery are absolutely repugnant.

[His quote] "> It is true that God permitted slavery, but only if the slaves were non-Israelites ..."
[My reply] "And that makes it OK? Are you on drugs?"

Please be patient and read the whole email before bandying insults about.

I did read the whole E-mail, and the insult is 100% deserved. You are admitting that God permitted slavery (even though you had previously claimed that God does not condone slavery), but only for non-Israelites, as if this makes it better! Don't you understand that it makes it worse? It means that slavery was tied to race!

I have not said that slavery was not wrong. I have not said that god supports slavery. I have claimed just the opposite, while saying that if slaves are kept, they should at least be treated well. Or would you prefer all slaves to be kept shackled to a ball and chain, given no shelter and forced to eat grubs and roots that they find themselves?

False dilemma fallacy, expecting me to choose between well-treated slaves and poorly treated slaves. Slaves should not be kept at all! I've already made the point that an "Almighty" God who outlaws omnipresent activities such as masturbation, homosexuality, prostitution, and free speech could have easily outlawed slavery if he saw fit to do so. He did not.

I mean if something is wrong, why try and make any good out of it? Why lessen the wrong, even if you are not removing it completely? That seems to be what you are saying.

Strawman. Nowhere did I say it is better to have brutal slavery practices than relatively humane slavery practices. I said that slavery in all its forms is evil, and should be abolished. I said that a God who routinely abolishes the unstoppable (such as prostitution, masturbation, homosexuality, and free speech) should have no problem doing so in this case. You ignored the point and grossly misrepresented my argument, as per your usual modus operandi.

What I am saying is that God lessens the wrong done by slavery by laying down guidelines and giving slaves the right to run away and seek freedom with another master, if they so desire.

And what I am saying is that a truly moral God would have abolished slavery entirely, rather than sitting on the horns of your false dilemma. Are you saying that it's harder to stop slavery than it is to stop masturbation, prostitution, homosexuality, and free speech? Why else would God abolish all of those unstoppable things without abolishing slavery, unless he didn't think slavery was all that bad?

[Editor's note: he repeats his bizarre claim that Biblical-era slaves were granted the right to run away]

[Quoted] "The contradiction is repeated. So what?"

All it contradicts is your interpretation. It clearly says that God wrote the same words as the original Ten Commandments on the tablets. Come on Mike, What would Occam say here? Why complicate things and demand a contradiction when all evidence is against a contradiction existing?

Let's add Occam's Razor to the list of concepts which escape your intellect. Occam would say that the simplest theory is mine, not yours. Let us revisit the passages from Exodus 34:4-29 in their entirety, instead of picking out particular words like "he" and interpreting them in a vacuum:

So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. "O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes," he said, "then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance." Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you.

Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites."

  1. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
  2. Do not make cast idols.
  3. Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
  4. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed.
  5. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
  6. Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
  7. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
  8. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
  9. Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
  10. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

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." 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.

When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the LORD.

All right, then. Now that we can see the passages in context, it is even more painfully obvious that Moses went up on the mountain with two blank tablets, heard ten commands, wrote them down on the tablets, and then came back down with them.

Your attempt to invoke the name of Occam is laughable, since it is you who are adding extra terms to this equation. First, your theory requires an extra tablet or scroll upon which Moses wrote down this second covenant, so as to leave the two main tablets unsullied for God to write on them, even though no such extra tablets or scrolls were described in the text. Second, it requires God's intervention in order to imprint the commandments onto the tablets, which is curious in light of the fact that he instructed Moses to write them down. Third, it asks us to consider it a pure coincidence that this second covenant just happens to include ten commands. Occam would have something to say, all right ... about your hare-brained theory, not mine.

It seems to me that the only way a contradiction would be necessary is if you start from the premise that God and Moses are both lying twits.

Or if you simply read the text. As for God's dishonesty, you seem to discount that possibility without explanation. Why should we assume that a mass murderer must be an honest person?

[Editor's note: notice how he assumes that I "start from the premise" that God and Moses are liars. In reality, I have presented evidence that if the text is to be believed, one of them must be a liar. He, on the other hand, works from the premise that they can't possibly be liars, so any inconsistencies in the text must be reading errors on my part]

[Explaining why he regarded Deborah as a leader even though she never actually commanded anyone] The Judges were Israel's equivalent of leaders as they did not yet have kings.

And it doesn't bother you that the only female judge happened to be in place at a time when Israel was being punished for its unfaithfulness?

[Quoted] "She needed to ask a man (Barak) to form and then lead an army of men against their enemies in order to restore Israel in God's eyes."

Did President Bush personally lead the US forces during the Gulf War? No. He appointed a general to do that. Same idea here.

In that era, the nation's leader was its military leader. We have separate leaders for war and peace today, but a lot has changed.

[Editor's note: notice how he shamelessly applies modern paradigms to Biblical-era situations when it suits him, even though he should surely know that things were much different back then]

It's a valid example. Just because it spoils your nice theories about Christians being sexist pigs doesn't mean it has to be relegated to the status of 'nitpick.'

You think that single nitpick spoils my "theories" about Christians being sexist pigs? You're quite full of yourself, aren't you? First, you're attacking a strawman. I didn't say that all Christians are sexist pigs, because not all Christians believe in the entire Bible. The author of "Who Wrote the Bible" is a Christian, yet he freely admits that it is neither historically or scientifically accurate. Second, my actual position (which is that the Bible itself is misogynistic) still stands. You cannot wipe out all of my evidence for its misogyny by nitpicking one particular piece of that evidence! If a man says one nice thing about women and then goes home and beats his wife, would you say that it's unfair to call him a misogynist?

Explain all of Paul's misogynistic instructions to women! Explain why every example of infertility in the Bible is always assumed to be the woman's fault (the woman was "barren", never the man). Explain why many of the women in the Bible have no names, eg- Lot's wife, Adam's daughters, or Job's wife. Explain why women are treated as war booty. Explain why the punishment for rape in the Old Testament depends on whether the victim is engaged to be married, ie- is already the property of another man, even though the woman suffers the identical crime regardless of her marital status. Explain why Eve is only created to help Adam. Explain why the Ten Commandments (1st set) describes a man's wife as part of his property. Explain why Leviticus 12 says that the period of uncleanliness following childbirth is longer for a female baby than for a male baby. Explain why females must be virgins on their wedding night or they will be stoned to death, even though no such rule exists for males.

I was willing to cut you some slack on the female Judge because I considered it no big deal, but it's obvious that you consider it a major victory, disproving my entire argument about the Bible's sexism. You are throwing down the glove by gloating over your imaginary victory, but I warn you: if you really want to play this game, I can absolutely bury you in sexist Bible quotes. Do you wish to continue down that path?

Ah my mistake. I apologise. You are still wrong. If God hated sex, why would he make us reproduce like that?

He didn't. Sexual reproduction is the result of natural evolution.

Why would he make it pleasurable?

Again, pleasurable sensations during sex are an obvious result of natural evolution. God, on the other hand, does everything he can to reduce the pleasure of sex. Not only does he saddle even the most harmless nudity with guilt complexes galore (Adam and Eve became ashamed and covered themselves the moment they learned of "good and evil"), but he demands that his followers mutilate their own genitals, to reduce their pleasure during sex!

Or didn't you know that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure for men? Far from being a medically necessary or even useful procedure, it is a barbaric practice designed to scar a man for life and reduce his sexual pleasure forever. If it weren't for the long history of religious theocracy in Europe and its colonists, circumcision would have been made illegal a long time ago.

[Editor's note: didn't you ever wonder what Jesus was talking about when he said that one should be either physically circumcised, or "circumcised in his heart"? It's kind of a weird statement, to argue that one who already believes in God and worships God must mentally circumcise himself! However, when one considers the fact that physical circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, the answer becomes obvious: we're not supposed to let ourselves enjoy sex too much]

It is when that pleasure is perverted and devalued through adultery, fornication, etc. that it becomes wrong.

None of this has to do with pleasure. Adultery is a relationship problem; people commit adultery because they are dishonest, they are unhappy in their relationships, or they are incapable of committment. It has nothing to do with physical pleasure. To be blunt, the inside of another woman's pussy won't feel any different than the inside of your wife's pussy. The motivations are mental, not physical.

As for fornication, it is simply sex which does not occur inside a marriage, and it is not necessarily immoral. In the classic example of a couple living together but not married, it is a perfect example of a victimless Biblical "crime".

Genesis 2:24 - 'For this reason a man will leave his father and other and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.' Becoming one flesh involves, amongst other things, having sex.

But not for the pleasure of it. Not for the sheer joy of it. Earthly pleasure and joy are regarded as competitors to your affection for God.

[His quote] "'men' could be used in the same sense as we use 'mankind.'"
[My reply] "Do you really think this weaselly semantics nonsense is going to fool anyone?"

You really are very cynical [Editor's note: he seems to think "cynical" is a powerful slander. What's wrong with being a cynic, or a skeptic?]. People very readily throw around the word semantics as if it were some sort of black art. Do you know what it actually is? It is the study of how meaning in language is created by the use and interrelationships of words, phrases, and sentences. A very useful tool in determining what a phrase means.

Of course. However, you are abusing it, which is why I referred to your argument as "weaselly semantics nonsense". It's no different than weaselly statistics nonsense, which is the abuse of statistics even though statistics do have a legitimate use. Instead of looking at the sentence in context, with respect to its use in the larger context of the entire passage, you simply strip out the word "men", analyze it in isolation, and invent a wildly fanciful interpretation for it. What you are doing is not a legitimate analysis of semantics. In fact, it is impossible to analyze the semantics of a single word in isolation.

What about the fact that it says these men had not "defiled themselves with women"? Isn't it obvious that they must therefore not be women? Isn't it painfully obvious that the word "men" in this context refers to males? You only make yourself look foolish by trying to claim that "men" refers to a mixed group of males and females.

[Quoted] "A bunch of men is a bunch of males. No one looks at a bunch of females and says that they are men."

It would be perfectly valid to say that they are of mankind. Besides, it was just one theory.

It was an invalid theory. A red herring nitpick on one particular word out of one particular passage of one particular example of a trend, designed to divert attention away from the trend itself. A waste of time, as are the rest of your criticisms. The only reason I bother answering your mail is that you make an excellent example of fundamentalist foolishness for my Hate Mail page.

Mo it doesn't. You are taking a conclusion - 'God hates sex' and twisting the evidence to fit it. You may not even realise you are doing it.

Nice complaint. Too bad you didn't bother backing it up with any evidence. I've listed numerous pieces of evidence for God's hatred of sex, and your only response is to say that I'm wrong without giving any evidence. Rather than provide evidence that God thinks physical pleasure is good, you attempt to nitpick individual words out of particular examples of his hatred for sex!

[Quoted] "If everyone on Earth obeyed Biblical edicts and remained "pure", the human race would have died out!"

Did you ever think that this might mean your interpretation is rather ridiculous and obviously wrong?

No, it is the Bible that is rather ridiculous and obviously wrong.

God told Abraham that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars and told him to have sex with his wife in order to accomplish this. Does that really sound like a God who hates sex and thinks no-one should do it?

It sounds like precisely what I've been describing all along: a God who hates sex and who permits it only for the purpose of procreation. A God who orders his followers to mutilate their own penises in order to ensure that they will experience the minimum possible amount of pleasure during sex.

[Quoted] "in Exodus 19:15, the Israelites were told to abstain from all sexual relations of any kind before they could meet God."

Some sports coaches would encourage their players to do the same before a good match. Does that mean that they think sex is wrong? No. It's done in order to help people focus.

Wrong. It's done because a lot of coaches are the products of religious indoctrination and irrational thinking, and they assume that sex the night before a big game will diminish their players' performance. There is, in fact, no objective evidence to support that conclusion, and no one has ever bothered even attempting to produce any. The connection is taken on blind faith, based on the assumption (probably derived from your religion) that sex diminishes a man's capacity in other areas.

[Quoted] "For that matter, sex is almost never mentioned in a favourable light in the Bible unless it relates to procreation,"

So you admit that it _is_ mentioned in a favourable light then. Good. If it is mentioned in a favourable light, how can God think it is wrong? How can he hate it? How can he be saying 'never have sex'?

He is saying "never have sex for its own sake." He is saying "don't enjoy it". He is saying "it's a necessary evil in order to have children".

[Quoted] "... or the rape of female prisoners of war."

Wear is rape mentioned favourably?

Moses tells the Israelites to kill all the men, kill all the women, kill all the little boys, and then keep the little virgin girls for themselves, in Numbers 31. God repeats the sentiment in Deuteronomy 20:13-15 and Deuteronomy 21:11-14. And what about all the times that men simply decide to take women for their wives, with no regard whatsoever for whether the women want them in return?

[Quoted] "In Matthew 5:28, Jesus even makes sexual DESIRE a sin."

No, he says that _lust_ is a sin, not desire. A man wanting to have sex within marriage is not wrong.

A man wanting to have sex without marriage is also not immoral, unless he's married and he's cheating on his wife. God hates sex, and you agree with him but you don't even realize it, so you instinctively classify all sex outside of marriage as immoral even though it's the perfect example of a victimless crime.

[Editor's note: the prohibition of lust is dangerous for relationships. How many women become furious if their husbands merely look at an attractive, scantily clad woman? I hate to break it to you, ladies, but all men look. It's rude to openly stare or make lewd comments, but to look? The "gentlemen" who don't look are either very good at hiding it, or they're homosexual. If you're a married man, try asking your wife: if a well-built, good-looking man walked by in nothing but a Speedo, would she look? If she's honest, the answer will be yes. But would she ever cheat on you? If she loves you, the answer will be no. Lust is instinctive and essentially involuntary, but love is not, and love conquers all. I can't believe that couples will actually fight over a furtive glance]

[Quoted] "In other words, those who are considered "worthy" will not get married (Paul echoed this sentiment later).

Will not get married in the next life. In Heaven there will be no marriage. I do not know why this is. It may be because we will love one another perfectly, so there will be no special someone to be our wife (or husband). It may be for entirely different reasons. Either way, it is relevant only to the next life after the resurrection, not this life.

Precisely! Don't you get it? Jesus is saying that in the Kingdom of Heaven, no one has sex! In other words, once all the bad people and bad instincts have been removed, sex will be gone! Divinity and sex simply don't mix!

You are actually admitting this, but you don't seem to realize that this is an obvious example of the Bible's negative attitude toward sex. One could try to explain it away by arguing that we don't have physical bodies in Heaven, but only if one chooses to ignore Revelations 21 and its descriptions of Heaven as a physical place, where human beings have physical bodies.

And how do you explain 1 Corinthians 7, in which Paul discourages marriage and says that it is good for a man not to touch a woman under any circumstances?

I am interpreting in context [Editor's note: presumably, the "context" that God is perfect]. You seem quite willing to start with a premise such as 'God hates sex' then twist words and take them out of context in order to support your theory.

You have failed to find a single example of me twisting words and taking them out of context. If anything, your clarification of my point about sex in the afterlife merely strengthened my argument. And while I don't want to beat a dead horse, you are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. You strip individual words such as "he" and "men" out of their sentences and generate bizarre interpretations for them in isolation, and then you accuse me of taking things out of context!

You nee to let go of your stereotypes and prejudices and examine the evidence objectively [Editor's note: his definition of "objective" seems to be "with the premise that God is perfect"]. Unless you do that, there is nothing that anyone can teach you.

I have examined the evidence objectively. Unlike you, I have the intellectual capacity to do just that. Your brainwashing has removed your ability to think clearly. For every argument, you proceed from the assumption that God is perfect, therefore anything he says must also be perfect, no matter how blatantly abhorrent it is.

I have shown how God's laws are immoral, and your replies have either taken the form of "that's not so bad", which is repugnant, or "but he said some nice things too", as if good and evil can cancel each other out. If you met someone who said "I think we should hunt down all the Jews and kill them in gas chambers", but he also said that "I believe in loving thy neighbour", would you say he's a great guy? Nice platitudes don't make up for hateful attitudes.

[Quoted] "There is no reason why slaves should submit to their masters."

Christians are called to submit, in order to serve a higher purpose. We are called to withstand suffering because there will be a higher reward in Heaven.

Why are rewards in Heaven contingent upon voluntary suffering on Earth? I have already asked this question several times, with no answer.

Because we will be witnessing to others.

Witnessing what? Our acceptance of slavery?

When a slave happily accepts their position, that will set them apart as someone different.

It will set them apart as someone victimized.

Agape love again.

Agape love is self-sacrifice for the benefit of another. You are trying to argue that by submitting to slavery, we somehow help God. This means that God benefits from slavery, which is yet another reason to conclude that God is evil. He who benefits from evil and asks for more evil to be committed in his name is evil himself.

You're very cynical. Are slaves held captive or not? Yes, they are.

And you're very illogical. The fact that all slaves are captives does not mean that any Biblical reference to freeing "captives" must therefore be talking about slaves. All humans are mammals. Does this mean that all mammals are humans?

No, this is what I have come up with in the time I set aside to look into the matter. I became reluctant to spend more time looking when their was no indication that you were going to mail me back. Now that you have, I'll ask a few people more knowledgeable than me. If I'd got this mail yesterday, I could have asked my minister in church today.

Let him E-mail me directly, if he knows how to use a computer. It is hopelessly unwieldy to hold a debate through a go-between, and I have better things to do with my time.

If you're not intellectually capable of holding up your end of the debate, then admit it. Don't try to turn this into some kind of conference.

Continue to Jonathan Boyd, Page 7

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: