"But You Choose Hell"

Recently on a podcast, someone made a statement that I have heard repeatedly from my Christian friends, “God doesn’t send you to Hell; you choose to go”.  To which I respond, “Bullshit”.  I can tell you right now that I do not choose Hell.  Of course, I wouldn’t choose Heaven either if the prick in the Bible is actually in charge as they claim.  Going to Hell is purely the fault of God.

First, God created Hell.  He could have just had us non-believers wink out of existence after we die, but he didn’t.  Instead, he created a place of eternal torment.  God is responsible for the existence and conditions in Hell.

Second, we are all supposedly born sinners and doomed to Hell unless we repent and accept Jesus.  But why are we born sinners?  Because God decided to not just blame Adam and Eve for disobeying him, but to spread the blame around a little and condemn us all because of their actions; another example of good old fashioned biblical justice.  So, from the moment we are conceived, we are already doomed to Hell.  We can avoid it by accepting Jesus, but the default mode for our existence after death is already predetermined: Hell.  Isn’t that good evidence of a loving god?  He creates a very nasty place that no one would want to go to and then blame everyone for something their ancestors did wrong so that from the moment of birth you are doomed to go there.  There is no true choice.  A true choice would allow you to not play the game in the first place, but you can’t opt out of this one. 

Even for Adam and Eve the game was rigged.  The only way that they could know that disobeying God was wrong was to have knowledge of good and evil; however, the only way to gain that knowledge was to disobey God and eat from the Tree of Knowledge.  They were damned from the beginning and due to God’s version of justice, so were we.  So, no, we do not choose Hell.  Hell is the default position established by God.  I use the term “God” lightly because no being worthy of the name would set up such an immoral system and the idea that Jesus suffered for us and offers us salvation is very warped, not generous.

  

By way of analogy, here is what the God/Jesus/Hell scenario boils down to.   Imagine a ship’s captain kidnaps several people, drugs them, takes them to the middle of the ocean and throws them overboard.  That is the situation that God set up by making Hell the default position.  Now imagine the first mate stands at the bow of the ship and offers to sell everyone a life vest and that the cost of the vest is everything the person owns.  This is Jesus offering salvation by giving up your life and your freedom of thought to him.  In the scenario with the ship’s captain, I know of no one, including my Christian friends,  that would disagree with the fact that the captain is an evil ass, but God/Jesus get a pass from the Christians and are considered loving and worthy of praise.

It is an immoral system that is supposedly in place and we most definitely do not choose Hell, we simply do not choose to believe in or follow despicable monsters from a theological version of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.  Those who do accept this story and consider it good, just, and moral are just as warped as the God their “holy book” describes.

A Request For When I Die

As I lay dying, respect my wishes enough to say no prayers to save my non-existent soul.  You may pray as much as you wish to hasten my demise if it makes you feel better, it will do no harm to me.  Do not come to my bedside to proselytize or send a pastor or priest to do the same; allow me the decency to die in peace free from religious noise.  Do not approach my family and offer any religious sentiments; if you really care you will only offer secular words of comfort.  

When I am dead, should you care, do not pray for me or my family, but leave them to grieve without the stale odor of religious platitudes.  Do not claim I am in a better place - I am worm food - good for them, not so much for me.  Do not make false claims about my character, either good or bad, but speak the truth whatever it may be.

When I am gone and can no longer speak for myself, should you hear from someone that I have had a deathbed conversion, DO NOT believe it.  Let me assure you that there is no god that I have heard of that I believe in or would turn to in my last moments.  Reason, fairness, and compassion for all living things has been my guiding light, not some musty, Bronze Age book of fairy tales or the stories of some demented father figure.

If you are a true friend, you will honor me most by honoring my wishes.

The Omni Fallacy of God (Part I)

According to those that believe, God is the great superlative in every category.  He is all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, and he is everywhere and everywhen.  But based on what the Bible and your neighborhood church teach, these can’t all be true.

God created humanity, according to the Bible, but man is a completely flawed creature or so the churches would have you believe.  Did God create a flawed being on purpose or was it the best he could do, or didn’t he realize the flaws existed?  If he didn’t know, he isn’t omniscient.  If this was the best he could do, then he isn’t omnipotent.  If he did it on purpose, he isn’t omnibenevolent ; creating a flawed being doomed us to much pain and suffering . 

Some would argue that it was a loving gesture to create humanity with so many imperfections because only through suffering do we learn life’s lessons and finally come to appreciate what God has to offer.  I could possible buy that if the suffering were not so extremely different from person to person and if it eventually ended in a positive manner for everyone; however, this is not the case.  This supposedly all-loving god will banish you to an eternity of torture in a flaming Hell simply for not believing.   If even a mere mortal such as me finds that scenario totally reprehensible and insufficient in compassion, then how could this all-loving god find this an acceptable result.  Clearly he is not all-loving.

And what about being everywhere and everywhen?  Think about that for a moment.  If he is omnipresent, then he is right there with you through every moment of your life.  He is there when you are born and when you die.  He is there when you have sex or take a shower.  He is there when the drunk gets in his car and drives away.  He is there when moments later the same drunk plows through a sidewalk full of school children.  He is there for every beating by a bully, every rape of a child, every plane crash, every terrorist attack, and every murder.  He is there when every horrendous act occurs, but does nothing to stop them.  Nothing.   This is all-loving?  Of course, you will hear the argument about not interfering with our free will, but then these same people will talk of miracles – times when he clearly interferes.  You can’t have it both ways.  He either interferes or he doesn’t and an omnipotent god should be able to figure out a way to step in and help without affecting our free will; if he can’t he is not omnipotent.  If he choices not to, he is not all-loving.

If he is not all-loving, all-knowing, and omnipotent, then he is not a god.

Change Your Life - Prepare for Everything

Would you change your whole life on a possibility?  That’s what many Christians want us to do.  On the possibility that we might be wrong about the existence of a god and Jesus, in particular, they want us to embrace the nothingness of faith and believe. 

Setting aside the ridiculous idea that you can just make yourself believe something at will, they are asking for what they themselves are not doing.    Is it possible that I am wrong and that a god exists? Sure, it’s possible, but I would say not very probable.  Is it possible that the Bible is an accurate reflection of that God and that the story of Jesus is true?  Again, it’s possible, but not likely.  They argue that the risks of being wrong are just too great to ignore and that we should believe in order to save our immortal soul from Hell.  We should totally change our lives to account for this highly improbable possibility because to do otherwise would have consequences that would be unacceptable to us.

 

But do they follow this advice?  No, not when it comes to other highly dangerous and more probable events.  It’s possible that a meteor could come crashing through my ceiling and kill me; it’s unlikely, but possible.  Aliens could land on Earth and take over the planet.  Again, it is not likely, but possible and very deadly.    I could be hit by a bus, catch a fatal disease, or any of an almost infinite list of other unlikely and very deadly possibilities.  All of them are more probable than the existence of a god or the discovery that the Bible is true.  But do we or they totally alter our lives to ensure that none of these items will affect us or at least do what is necessary to minimize the negative results?  Do we prepare for the worst of every improbable event, “Just in case”?  No.  Instead, we make an informal analysis of the risk and take reasonable precautions based on the probability of the event and the gruesomeness of the consequences.

Given the horrific outcome of my afterlife should I be wrong about their buddy Jesus, you would think that the answer might be “yes” and that I would change.  But the probability of God/Jesus is so remote that it isn’t worth abandoning reality just to lie to myself about a happy ending.  Plus, if they are right, the consequences of believing in God/Jesus and thus spending eternity with Him are too horrific to contemplate.  To me, that is the more horrible ending; spending eternity with a being that would torture my fellow humans simply because they wouldn’t suspend reason and morality and call evil 'good' just to save their own ass.

So their pseudo-“Pascal’s Wager” is untenable to me and they apply it lopsidedly to their own lives when it comes to all the other deadly, but improbable events that could occur.  They are not altering their lives by hoarding water, food, guns, and fuel.  They are not building bomb shelters and walking around covered in motion detectors and bubble wrap to protect themselves from even moderately improbable events let alone events as improbable as God.  When I see my Christian friends collectively preparing for imminent catastrophe from asteroids and aliens, disease and disaster, or every possible random traffic accident, maybe then I will think they actually believe in Pascal’s Wager themselves.

It's Called Dying with Dignity

The headline for this article is clearly slanted to indicate that atheist doctors, and by association all atheists, are immoral because they are eager to end a patient's life.  Later on it softens ever so slightly to indicate that perhaps the religious are slow to act to reduce pain if it means shortening the lifespan of the patient.  I think this article fails to clearly state the obvious; the atheist doctors are doing what is best for the patient, while the religious doctors are doing what is best according to their faith.  There is more regard for the patient's wishes and level of pain in the atheist camp and more concern about religious dogma in the believer camp.  This antiquated notion of the soul and the sacredness of human life as preached from the pulpit is prolonging the agony of terminally ill patients by placing obedience to an unhelpful god above the dignity of the individual.

Political Correctness is Highly Overrated

Being “politically correct” is highly overrated and often inappropriate.  When you tell me about your wonderful day in church or the moving sermon or the church picnic, etiquette dictates that I should smile, nod my head, and allow you to drone on…and for the most part I would agree.  I am not one to attack every religious utterance, especially when it is clear that the person has no hidden agenda, despite how boring and nauseating it may be to endure it.  However, when you move on to my personal life or when you start to talk about influencing law, children’s’ education, and the rights of others, I have no qualms, in fact, I feel it is my duty, to tell you in no uncertain terms that your ideas and your religion are full of bull.

Being “politically correct” or polite is fine in short, casual conversation, but extending to other arenas is simply irresponsible.  I don’t care if it is your personal religious conviction and that I may hurt your feelings; if what you are peddling is harmful in some way to others, I will not hesitate to tell you how despicable your viewpoint is.  The truth, no matter how raw and uninviting, is preferable to allowing harmful lies to continue.

So, although I support and will defend your right to free speech, if you preach anti-gay rhetoric, or abstinence-only programs, or creationist dogma, or any other misinformed vile dogma, don’t expect a free pass.  We have become a country where speaking out against certain topics has become taboo and religion is the prime recipient of this attack-free zone.  But some religious beliefs, when turned into actions, are dangerous and immoral. 

Homeschooling your child or sending them to some religious school just so you can propagate hatred and ignorance should not be tolerated.  I am not condemning all home schools or religious schools, as some are actually good at most aspects of education.  But those parents that shield their children from scientific truths in favor of religious dogma or continue to trot out homophobic doctrine in place of equality and compassion, I have no tolerance for these.

Just a quick rant.  More on each of these later.

Samson: The First Suicide "Bomber"

Samson is depicted as a hero in the Bible, particularly in children's stories, but he appears to be less than heroic in his deeds.  If Samson represents Biblical morality, I will look elsewhere for my morals and my heroes.

Judges 14:
Samson sets up a bet with his bride's people in the form of a riddle.  The family, angry that they could not solve the riddle and feeling that they were being robbed,  threatened Samson's wife until she extracted the answer from Samson.  Samson understandably gets angry with the people, but instead of harming them, he goes to another town, kills 30 people, and uses their clothes to pay his debt.     

"19And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle."

Does this sound like the actions of a hero or a brute?

Judges 15:
Next, Samson returns to the house of his bride and finds that her father has given her away to another.  Again, Samson vents his anger at the wrong people.  Instead of harming the father in some manner, he destroys the crops of the Philistines.

4And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails.

 5And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the standing corn, with the vineyards and olives.

This results in retaliation from the Philistines who also attack the wrong party as they blame the father and daughter and burn them.  Samson seeks revenge and slaughters many of the Philistines.  The Philistines seek revenge and Samson kills another thousand with just the jawbone of an ass.  All of this death and destruction could have been avoided if Samson had just been a man and walked away.  Instead, he plays the violent hothead and continues the cycle of violence.

Judges 16:
After all that killing, eventually Samson goes out of town for sex with a prostitute; another mark of a hero.  He falls in love with Delilah who wants to know the secret of his strength.  He is foolish enough to tell her, loses his locks, his strength, and is captured by his old buddies the Philistines.  They gouge out his eyes, but for some strange reason keep him in prison long enough for his hair and his strength to return.  Silly Philistines.  Here is where Samson gets to become the first suicide "bomber".  While tied to pillars, he requests as is granted the strength from God to destroy the temple, which contains thousands of people, not just his captors and he commits suicide in the process.

 27Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport.

 28And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.

 29And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.

 30And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.

This is pretty much all that is said of Samson in the Bible.  Based on the information, he started a chain of events with his uncontrollable anger that resulted in the deaths of his wife, father- in-law, thirty innocent citizens, thousands of Philistines soldiers, and thousands more Philistines of unknown status or relationship to the damage done to him.  What a pity he didn't take an anger management class instead.  But, of course, none of this would have been possible without God giving him his extraordinary strength.

Samson is a Biblical hero often used in Bible Studies for children.  Here is an example:  www.essex1.com/people/paul/bible42.html .  If you notice, none of Samson's uncontrollable anger is ever mentioned.  His role in the death and destruction is glossed over and the comments at the end of the story give kids the impression that committing suicide while taking out your enemies is a good thing, possibly even Christ-like.

Enemies Far and Near

Just as Christianity was a physical danger to those in prior centuries that did not subscribe to its beliefs, so now is Islam.  In many books of the Old Testament, a barbaric, vengeful god that commands the extermination of non-believers is depicted.  The New Testament simply delays that punishment until the afterlife.  The Quran follows in the footsteps of both.

Their attitudes towards women, infidels, and homosexuals, to name just a few, may vary in practical application, but not in their conceptual foundations and both are dominated by submission to the often unethical demands of their gods (or god, depending on who is interpreting the relationship between Jehovah and Allah).
        
Many are concerned about the violent face of Islam that we see in terrorist attacks, honor killings, and barbaric punishments of Shari'a law.  Their fears are legitimate, we should be concerned, as these  activities are sanctioned by Islamic leaders and the Quran itself.  Christianity went through it's most violent period several hundred years ago, prior to airplanes, nuclear arms, and lethal biological weapons.  Imagine what the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition would have been like had Christianity had access to these tools of terror during its adolescence as Islam does today.

While Islam is arguably the more present danger, what would it take for Christianity to follow suit.  What would it take for Christianity to become more terroristic or to enforce its own version of Shari'a Law?  Some would say both have already begun with the evangelization of the armed forces involved in unnecessary wars, the ever increasing entanglement of religion into politics with the focus on electing Senators, Congressman, Governors, and Presidents that support Christianity in its more fundamental forms, and the overtaking of school boards by fundamentalists making decisions about sex and science with little understanding of how either one works.

Make no mistake.  We are in a battle to protect our freedoms and our lives, but it is not just the obvious external struggle with fundamentalist Islam.  The conflict also wages internally on a more subtle level with fundamentalists that claim to follow Jesus.

Abolute Certainty

I recently had a discussion with an Evangelical Christian that I know about the possibility of being wrong in her belief. I asked, "My question is, despite your certainty, are you willing to admit that in the end, the possibility exists that you are wrong?".  Her response, "Nope!!! Because I know Jesus is real so therefore I can't be wrong!!!".


To me this is the problem with some of the Fungelical Right.  They will not even allow for the possibility that they could be mistaken - no possibility whatsoever.  Couple that arrogant certainty about their perception with the negative aspects of their religion, throw in a little politics, and you have a recipe for disaster.  They have the potential to become no different than those Christians that  burned witches in the past or the Taliban today.


These Christians have a worldview. Fine. We all do. But when something arises that conflicts with my worldview, I examine it, question it, and gather more information to either confirm or reject it. If I get enough evidence, I abandon that part of my worldview. It matters to me if I am actually right or wrong; it is not enough to just think that I am right, I want proof. They do the opposite, apparently. If something disagrees with their preset worldview, they automatically reject it instead of examining both to see which is correct.  They have absolute certainty that they are infallible.  Hey, everyone's the Pope!

The only way they can be absolutely certain is to have absolute knowledge. Anything less than absolute knowledge would allow for some piece of information to exist that disproves their position. If no god exists, then as far as I know, no being has absolute knowledge, so therefore, anyone would be mistaken (delusional) to claim it. If a god does exist, then god would (by most definitions) have absolute knowledge, so that means that they each think that they must be god since they have this absolute knowledge and certainty. Sorry to disappoint them, but gods they aren't.

These types of people are not open-minded by any stretch of the imagination.  If you are not open, then you are closed. A closed mind is a dead mind.  Seriously, anyone who has absolute certainty that they cannot be wrong, that it is impossible for them to be wrong, has a serious god complex.

Mental slavery is mental death, and every man who has given up his intellectual freedom is the living coffin of his dead soul. - Robert G. Ingersoll

Free Speech in Opposition To Religion - As Long As It's Not Mine.

The ACLJ (The Angry Christians League of Justice) is all fired up about the UN “Defamation of Religion” Resolution and so am I.  I agree with them that this would be a bad idea.  It limits free speech which is the cornerstone of our Constitution.  They want to remain free to attack Islam as much as they want – and they should be able to.  Heck, I’ll even join them in that fight. 

But this same group also supported the PERA Act ("Public Expression of Religion Act") which essentially would have silenced advocates of Church - State separation.  PERA would have made it prohibitively expensive to bring a lawsuit for violations of Church – State separation due to the requirement to eliminate reimbursement for court costs when the plaintiff actually won the case!  It would have denied people the ability to bring lawsuits when their rights were violated because they would have to pay for court costs even if they proved that their rights had been violated.  It, in effect, would have removed their ability to speak freely about certain religious issues.  Fortunately, this bill never became law.

I would find it laughable, if it wasn’t such a serious subject.  Essentially, the ACLJ is fine with limited disagreement with Christianity, but oh boy don’t you dare keep us from bashing Islam.  It’s hypocrisy at its finest.

Show Yourself

God, if he exists, has the knowledge to determine exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence.  He has the power to make it happen, whatever it may be.  And yet, curiously, he refuses to do so.  Some Christians would insist that he has already done this and I have just ignored it.  I doubt it.  I don’t think I could miss the kind of evidence that I would require.  The whole planet would know if God demonstrated his existence in a manner that I would accept as proof.  

Others would say that it would violate my free will if he interfered and that I must come to him on my own.  Bull.  Providing real evidence of his existence WOULD make me a believer, I agree; but only a believer in the sense that god exists.  It WOULD NOT make me a follower; I would still have my free will to reject his message- and believe me I would.    His message is one of cruelty and injustice, nothing even close to what a “God” should be.  I am more moral than the god of the Bible and so is almost everyone on the planet (maybe there are a few as bad as him, maybe).

So what is he so afraid of?  He can’t violate my free will and I already reject his message, so that can’t be it.  Why doesn’t he prove he exists if he really loves me and wants me to join him in heaven?  Because, he doesn’t exist.

Outraged!

Over the past few years, several cases of children dying because their parents prayed instead of seeking medical help have come to the public's attention (e.g., Madeline Neumann, Kent Schaible, Ava Worthington, and Neil Beagley).  If this wasn't bad enough, now the court is showing it's favoritism to religion by handing down slaps on the wrist instead throwing the book at these monsters.  Instead of giving them the 25-year prison sentence that they could have (should have) received, the court handed down a sentence of six months in jail (to be served one month a year) and 10 years' probation.


This is absolutely ridiculous and gets my blood boiling.  If this were anybody else they would have put them away for as long as possible, but put religion in the mix and suddenly they back off.  Why?  Why does this country continue to show deference to religious systems that allow such cruelty?  Religion has not even proven itself to be real and yet we have to tiptoe lightly when the subject comes up and respect the beliefs of others.  Well I don't.  I don't respect any belief system that would allow such stupidity and suffering.


For once I find myself wishing that Hell were real because these parents and the judge that sentenced them belong there.

Right to Life?

According to a Pew Research Center Forum Survey, 74% of white, evangelical protestants think that abortion is morally wrong.  However, another survey from Pew, indicates that the same percentage, 74%, of white, evangelical protestants support the death penalty.  It seem ironic to me that the "Right to Life" group is so heavily in favor of taking life.

I know that these are not exactly the same people (i.e., some anti-abortionists are also anti-death penalty), but the trend is clear among this group - the right to life only applies to the beginning.  Sure, the people sentenced to death were found guilty and the fetuses are innocent, I understand that.  But with the number of death row inmates that have been set free because of new DNA evidence that shows that they were not the guilty party, I would think that we would be a little less diligent in carrying out executions or supporting them.  What ever happened to "judge not lest ye be judged" or "turn the other cheek"?  I am not suggesting that these prisoners should not be tried and convicted just that the viewpoint of the white, evangelical protestants is inconsistent.  Why do they not support life equally?  It seems that protecting the lives of the living is less important to them than  protecting the lives of those yet to be born.

Blasphemy Laws be Damned.

The recent push by Islamic nations to have a United Nations treaty to ban blasphemy is ridiculous - and unfortunately gaining traction.  It is a pressure to which the United States must never succumb.

I live in the United States were we have both freedom of religion and freedom of speech; two rights which I deeply cherish. Other countries do not always have these rights; however, I support anyone in those countries or the U.S. who demands them and fights for them.  While I am an atheist, I will strongly defend anyone to have whatever religious beliefs they wish.  I may not support how they act upon them if they result in oppression of others or cause harm, but I support their right to hold such beliefs.  But we must also have free speech if we are to have the freedom we require to express our religious beliefs.  This may involve expressing ourselves in ways that offend others of differing viewpoints.  Too bad.  You have the right to believe what you wish and to express those thoughts, but you do not have the right to not be offended.  Sorry, but that is the price you pay to have the right to freely express your religious beliefs.

As an atheist, I am constantly subjected to hate speech that could be taken as offensive.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  I wouldn't want any government to stifle the speech of the theists that attack my morality - or lack thereof in their view.  My task is to quiet them by convincing them that they are wrong, not by legislating their silence.

In my opinion, any country that does not guarantee the right to free speech is not properly free.  We should never bow to the pressure of other countries, no matter what the risk, if it compromises the core principles on which this country was founded.

Related Quote:
“This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves” - Robert Green Ingersoll

Where is the Church’s Compassion?

From the website, Catholic Answers, comes the following:

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus(withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

Of course the site backs this up by Scriptural references:

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Uh, that’s it.  Onan deliberately defies God and is killed.  Perhaps the reason he was killed was because he disobeyed God, not specifically because he “spilled his seed”.  I don’t see how you can go from this one instance of coitus interruptus to a broad prohibition against contraception in general.

So under any and all circumstances, contraception should never be used – never.  So, apparently, if your spouse has a sexually transmitted disease, you should either never have sex again or risk getting the disease as well as potentially passing it on to a child.  If you already have as many children as you can afford to raise properly with adequate food and clothing, then again you should simply stop having sex or get a second job to pay for another child.  Of course all this extra work would leave you little time to spend with the new child, but that appears not to be a concern.  If your wife has some medical condition that would make childbirth a fatal proposition for her, well, too bad – no sex for you, or you could go ahead and have sex and potentially kill your wife.

These are just a few instances where contraception would be a vital part of a healthy marriage, I’m sure there are others as well.   Risk disease, death, and poverty or simply don’t have sex – some choice.  Where is the Church's compassion?

Are There No True Believers?

John 14: 12-14

14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Matthew 18:19-20

¹⁹"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 

²⁰For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

So, if you believe in Jesus, he will do anything that you ask? Anything? What if what you ask is immoral? There doesn’t seem to be any qualifier here, but let’s assume that he means morally acceptable requests. It seems reasonable that people would understand that he means that.

Billions of people claim to believe in Jesus and from some that I know or have met, I would say that at least some of them are being totally honest. Of these billions, if only one percent honestly believed in Jesus that would still be tens of millions of true believers.

So have none of these true believers ever asked for an end to hunger, poverty, war, disease, prejudice? Have none asked for world peace? Have none asked for Jesus to provide more evidence for non-believers so that all could come to Jesus? It doesn’t appear that any have. I can only think of a few explanations for this:

(1) No one has ever asked.
(2) No two true believers have ever been together and asked at the same time.
(3) Jesus lied.
(4) The whole story is fiction.

Possibility #2 seems unreasonable given the sheer number of believers. Option #1 would indicate that every single person who has every prayed has prayed selfishly. They have only prayed for themselves or close friends and relatives. But still, even if everyone only prayed for themselves or friends and family, the number of people involved would have covered nearly everyone on Earth. And yet we still have hunger, poverty, etc.

Given the outcome of prayer for Madeline Neumann, Kent Schaible, Ava Worthington, and Neil Beagley - all were children who died because the parents prayed instead of seeking treatment that would have easily cured their child - Jesus clearly didn't live up to his promise. So the most likely options are #3 and #4.

Religion Does Not Inspire Morality

Morality: A system of conduct relating to principles of right and wrong.

Far too often we hear preachers or other religious believers ask:

 "If you don't believe in god, then where do you get your morality from?"

They don't ask us if we are moral or examine our lives to see if we are moral, instead they focus on the source of our morality.  Why? Some may ask for legitimate reasons and actually be curious to understand, but I would suspect most do it to divert the subject away from the truth - the truth that you do not need a god or a holy book to be moral.

If religious believe is the superior method of obtaining morality, then we should see believers acting in a moral fashion, but do we?

Let's compare two groups at opposite ends of the spectrum - Catholic Priests and the American Academy of Science. The former is a highly devout religious group that has devoted their lives to practicing their religious beliefs and instructing others.  The other group has a very high percentage of atheists (~90%).  Which group do we see molesting children with a higher frequency?  The priests.  I realize that this is just a small segment of the population, but if the religious method is so much more superior to the secular method, these two groups should not even be close let alone reversed.

We see scandals among high profile religious leaders (e.g., Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Jesse Jackson).  We continually hear about scandals with politicians and we all know that an atheist doesn't have a prayer of being elected.  The prisons are full of Christians and "born-again" Christians.

Oh, there will be the excuses that we are still dealing with humans and therefore believers still occasionally act immoral.  But one would think that the stronger their believe the more moral they would be. Their believe in god would sustain them through the temptation to commit 'sin'. But as we can see from the groups and individuals mentioned above that even the most devout still commit horribly immoral acts.

As an atheist, I have never committed the immoral acts that these individual have.  Maybe they should consider atheism.

While this data is not representative of an exhaustive quantitative analysis, it does illustrate that even people that are devoutly religious can be immoral. It's no wonder.  Just look at the morality of their god.

Examples of "Biblical Morality"
- Old Testament -

God murders or commands others to commit murder several times in the Bible - usually to take land for his 'Chosen' people.

God kills everything on the planet during the flood.

God kills the innocent firstborn children and animals of Egypt.

God relentlessly demands animal sacrifices throughout the Bible.

God commands people to stone a man to death simply for picking up sticks on the sabbath.

God commands parents to stone their unruly children.

Women that cannot prove virginity at marriage are to be stoned.  - No such rule exits for men.

God never condemns slavery.

Examples of "Biblical Morality"

- New Testament -

Jesus introduces the idea that nonbelievers will be tortured forever for finite sins.

Jesus supports the Old Testament Law - every 'jot and tittle' - which includes the violence noted above.

Jesus states that he is not here to bring peace, but a sword. He intends to set family members against each other.  So much for the 'family values' we hear about from the Conservative Christian Fundamentalists.

Jesus speaks in parables so that people will not be able understand his message and so, go to hell.

Jesus casts out demons and sends them into innocent pigs which then hurl over a cliff.

In Revelation, the Bible describes grisly scenes of murder and mayhem. Why not just vaporize us all?

Jesus never condemns slavery.

While this list is clearly does not cite all of the examples in the Bible, it does give a little flavor of the Bible's idea of what is moral.

What Sacrifice?

SACRIFICE
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Allowing innocent substitutes to be sacrificed and blaming subsequent generations for the crimes of their ancestors is a commonly accepted practice of this just and loving god.

So god makes the rules, doesn't want to enforce the rules, but can't change the rules because that would not make him look too godly.  So he concocts this bizarre arrangement to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself.  If we decide to look at this rationally and do not accept the validity of a substitute sacrifice or doubt that god actually sacrificed anything, this loving god sends us to eternal torment.  Nice huh?  Give us a rational mind and then punish us for using it.

And what exactly was sacrificed?  Jesus was God, after all, and was resurrected just a few days later.  A day of torture (and you knew it all beforehand because you arranged it all) an eternity of bliss sitting beside, er - yourself?

Does any of this convoluted story sound like the work of an all-knowing, all-loving god?  Does it make any sort of sense?  It doesn't to me. If we are to believe the Bible, then this vengeful, bloodthirsty god of the Old Testament suddenly felt sorry for us and tried to give us a way out - a crazy, nonsensical way out - but a way out nonetheless.  But if we don't accept it, he rapidly goes back to his old ways, actually worse ways because Hell didn't exist in the Old Testament.

I don't know if any gods exists or not. I am extremely doubtful.  I don't see any logical reason to believe, but I could be wrong.  But if a god exists, he certainly cannot be as described in the Bible; at least one would hope not. This 'sacrifice' story is just one of several issues in the Bible that do not depict a being that is even close to being what I would consider "God-like".  If I am more ethical and rational, then it is not a god.

Intolerant, Loving Christians

A pro-atheist billboard in Cincinnati was removed due to threats to the owner of the land where the billboard was located.  The message was simple and not offensive at all: "Don't Believe In God? You are not alone."  And yet some thin-skinned, hypersensitive Christians had to spread their Christian message of love and compassion, intolerance and bigotry and threatened the landowner. Why?  This billboard did not say there was no god or say anything malicious about religion - contrary to some Christian signs that I have personally observed which tell me that I am damned to burn in Hell for eternity (just travel to Arkansas or Mississippi sometime).


This situation reminds me of an Ingersoll quote that I have on a T-shirt: “This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves”


If Christianity (or any other theistic religion) was true, it wouldn't need to be defended by blasphemy laws or ignorant thugs.

The Character of God: The Book of Job

The Book of Job is often held up as an example of God’s mercy and goodness. If only we believe in God and do not turn from him even in bad times, we will be rewarded with God’s grace and mercy. After all, in the end, after everything Job had been through he did not turn from God and God rewarded him as described in Job 42:12-17.

42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.
42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
42:14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch.
42:15 And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.
42:16 After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.
42:17 So Job died, being old and full of days.

But let’s examine this “mercy” and “goodness” from God a little bit more.

1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

According to Job 1:1, Job was “perfect”, “feared god”, and “eschewed evil”. And God being all-knowing, would know that this was because Job was truly a good man and not just because he had been successful. However, God goes along with Satan’s plan to test Job – he actually gives his permission for Satan to do anything he wishes as long as he doesn’t actually kill Job. Anything.

1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
1:13 And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
1:14 And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:
1:15 And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
1:16 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
1:17 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
1:18 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
1:19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

Matthew Henry’s commentary on the above is as follows:

Job's afflictions began from the malice of Satan, by the Lord's permission, for wise and holy purposes.

Satan brought Job's troubles upon him on the day that his children began their course of feasting. The troubles all came upon Job at once; while one messenger of evil tidings was speaking, another followed. His dearest and most valuable possessions were his ten children; news is brought him that they are killed. They were taken away when he had most need of them to comfort him under other losses. In God only have we a help present at all times. (Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, BibleGateway.com)

Malice of Satan? God clearly gave his permission to Satan to do these horrible acts against Job. While Satan may be malicious, God is clearly no better as he allowed an innocent, pious man to be punished in the worst way possible – by the loss of his children. For any parent, this is a fate worse than death. But God has no problem with it and Henry states that it is for “wise and holy purposes”. Wise and holy purposes? How does this show wisdom or holiness? God already knew the final outcome as he knew Job’s heart and mind; Job was already “god-fearing”. Did God do this to teach Satan a “wise” lesson? If so, couldn’t he have done it in a manner that didn’t require the deaths of Job’s children? There is no shred of wisdom or compassion shown by God in this story.

Henry says “In God only have we a help present at all times”. Excuse me? Help at all times? God not only didn’t help Job, he authorized the whole thing. With friends like that, who needs Satan?
Since Job refused to rebuke God, Satan and old Jehovah tried again.

2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
2:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
2:4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
2:5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.
2:6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
2:7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
2:8 And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes.

So after additional God-sanctioned torment, Job still refuses to turn away from God. And his reward?

42:10 And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.
42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.
42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.
42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
42:14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch.
42:15 And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.
42:16 After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.
42:17 So Job died, being old and full of days.

Notice Job 42:11: “and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him”. This verse gets it right: the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. The rest of the chapter goes on to indicate that God had blessed Job more at the end of his life than at the beginning. Matthew Henry’s commentary on chapter 42 explains further:

In the beginning of this book we had Job's patience under his troubles, for an example; here, for our encouragement to follow that example, we have his happy end. His troubles began in Satan's malice, which God restrained; his restoration began in God's mercy, which Satan could not oppose. Mercy did not return when Job was disputing with his friends, but when he was praying for them. God is served and pleased with our warm devotions, not with our warm disputes. God doubled Job's possessions. We may lose much for the Lord, but we shall not lose any thing by him. Whether the Lord gives us health and temporal blessings or not, if we patiently suffer according to his will, in the end we shall be happy. Job's estate increased. The blessing of the Lord makes rich; it is he that gives us power to get wealth, and gives success in honest endeavours. The last days of a good man sometimes prove his best, his last works his best works, his last comforts his best comforts; for his path, like that of the morning light, shines more and more unto the perfect day.

“His troubles began in Satan's malice, which God restrained”; what restraint? The fact that Job wasn’t killed is supposed to be restraint? Apparently our families are worthless in God’s eyes; as long as we stay alive to worship him, which is all that matters.

“God doubled Job's possessions. We may lose much for the Lord, but we shall not lose anything by him.”. Job lost everything of importance by God’s will. And apparent as long as you end up with a new family in the end, the loss of the old one is no big deal.

I have read several commentaries, posts, and other explanations of the Book of Job, but no matter what anyone says, I still do not see how this shows God in a good light. In my opinion, it shows God as an accomplice to murder, destruction of property, and biological attacks. It illustrates how God is willing to do anything to prove that the only thing that matters is worshipping him. Job’s life, his pain and suffering, meant nothing to God; all that mattered was showing Satan, that Job would be dumb enough to still cling to God. And to God, what’s the big deal, a little inconvenience for Job, after all he restored it all in the end (except of course his kids, he had to get new ones. He sure showed that Satan, didn’t he. Now pay up Satan, you lost the bet. What was the wager anyway? Oh, yeah, that’s right, God was playing with our lives.
Fortunately, I don’t believe in God or Bible as any sort of revealed truth about God; it’s just another big book of fairy tales. But for those who do believe in it, how can you possibly think that God is good or just or merciful in any meaningful sense of those words?