Was that a bad thing? If so, why?

Is it bad to "kill countless women"? If so, why?

Why You Can Trust the Bible: Page 4 of 4

There are many scientific truths found in the Bible that we have no historical record of being discovered by scientists for many hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of years after these truths were recorded in the Bible.

(These examples are from the book The Bible: Is It Reliable by June Hunt.)

A. Geophysics: The earth is round - a sphere.

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…” (Isaiah 40:22)

B. Planetology: The earth is suspended from space.

“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

C. Astronomy: The number of stars cannot be counted (from a practical point of view).

“That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore…” (Genesis 22:17)

D. Earth Science: Mountains and canyons exist in the sea.

“I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever…” (Jonah 2:6)

E. Oceanography:

1. Water paths/ocean currents exist in the sea.

“The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” (Psalm 8:8)
.
2. Springs and fountains exist in the sea.

“When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep.” (Proverbs 8:28)

F. Hydrology: Precipitation and evaporation cycles exist.

“He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them...For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapor thereof; which the clouds do drop and distill upon man abundantly...Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; to cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; to satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth” (Job 26:8; 36:27-28;38:25-27)

G. Genetics: All living things reproduce after their own kind.

“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind…” (Genesis 1:21)

H. Hematology: Life is in the blood.

“For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is in the blood thereof…” (Leviticus 17:14)

I.. Urology: Circumcision is to be performed on the eighth day.

“And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations…” (Genesis 17:12)

J. Epidemiology: Public sanitation is essential.

“Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee.” (Deuteronomy 23:12-13)

K. Public Health: Policies are needed

1. Never eat animals that died of natural causes. (Lev. 7:24)

2. To destroy contaminated objects. (Lev. 11:13; 15:12)

3. To isolate or quarantine those who are sick. (Lev. 13:4)

4. To burn used dressings, contaminated clothing. (Lev 13:47-54)

5. To rid the house of any mold. (Lev 14:34-47)

6. To wash clothes and bathe after touching someone with an infection or touching the bed of someone with an infection. (Lev 15:11)

Some friends decide to go to the vanilla and chocolate ice cream shop. On their way they're stopped by the local constable, who tells them, "Don't eat the chocolate ice cream. If you do, someday, I'll come along and shoot you in the face!"

Some of the friends are scared and say "Okay, vanilla it is then!" Others say, "F*** you Jesus! I'll eat chocolate ice cream if I want!" And others respond, "What a nut! He expects us to believe that he'll really kill us just for having some chocolate ice cream? Buzz off."

Aristotle, who was sitting nearby, waves the scoffers over and says, "Look, Jesus is an excitable guy and maybe you can ignore his threats, but you really should avoid the chocolate ice cream and stick to vanilla here. Their chocolate ice cream has been prepared from spoiled ingredients and will probably make you sick. I've been watching and half the people who've had it leave throwing up afterwards."

Some of the scoffers are concerned, "Okay, I guess I'll stick to vanilla then." The rest respond, "Whatever, I really want chocolate ice cream, I'll take my chances," or "Do you really know that the chocolate ice cream is why they got sick? Were you making sure that it was only people who had chocolate ice cream who got sick, or that they weren't already sick when they came in?"

Jesus is a little miffed and says, "Hey guys, why are you listening to Aristotle? Check out what that guy over says about him."

At this Darwin stops eating and says, "Look guys, I've studied all this. Your preference for chocolate or vanilla is the result of psychological drives you have as the result of random mutations or historical happenstance that made your ancestors more likely to have surviving descendants. Given that, do you think it really matters whether you actually have chocolate or vanilla?"

Jesus snickers and mutters, "Well, I'll make sure it matters..." but is interrupted by a passing man carrying a sign:

"Ah-ha! You should ignore these fools, Aristotle and Jesus. They pretend that they want to help you, but really they are just trying to keep all the chocolate ice cream for themselves! Do what you want! Throwing up is not so bad anyway."

Jesus laughs and says, "Yeah, yeah, we've already heard it Friedrich. Go find some more horses to save."

Aristotle then turns to Darwin and says, "Wait a minute though, I don't care why these partiers want chocolate or vanilla, or where that preference comes from. I'm just pointing out that if they eat chocolate then they'll probably get sick. No one except sickos want to get sick. Anyway, how is this any different than ignoring Jesus' threat to shoot them in the face? Maybe they want to be shot in the face as well? My point is that they'll be worse off if they eat the chocolate ice cream, even if they really want to."

Jesus interjects and tapping his badge says, "I'm not saying they shouldn't eat chocolate because I'll shoot them in the face if they do (although I will!), but just because, look at my badge, I'm the law, they should just do what I say because I say so."

Aristotle smiles, "Well, you do claim to be the law...but even so, why should someone follow the law? Are you saying that if you shot them in the face if they eat vanilla ice cream and let them go if they ate chocolate that they should still eat vanilla because you tell them to? I think most people would prefer a little barfing to another hole in the head. Ultimately you're making these threats and telling people to not eat chocolate because you want to stop people from getting sick from the spoiled ice cream. If chocolate ice cream didn't make people sick, then you're just being a tyrant, telling people what kind of food they have to eat for no good reason. Are you a tyrant?"

At this Darwin leans over and points out that everyone has already gone into the ice cream shop and so they should shut up and let him eat in peace.

And yet god does nothing to stop it. What a prick.

Since Jesus sees the big picture, he knows the stakes are much higher than simply getting sick from chocolate ice cream. He wants the friends to develop the sustained level of conscious awareness that allows for sovereignty from their impulses.

Later, he will raise the bar even higher by proclaiming that even thinking about eating chocolate ice cream is unacceptable. He will say this fully knowing that the friends will fail. He is purposely setting up these failure points so that they will feel shamed when they inevitably fail. This will alienate them from the status quo so that they might seek out the Kingdom of Heaven.

The hero takes responsibility for the evil in the world. His response to his frustration over the lack of accountability from God is to incrementally place more accountability on his own shoulders.

"WhAt's AbSolUtely and ObjeCtiVelY and UnivErsAlLy wrOng wiTh geTtiNg siCk frOm sPOilEd fOOd iN yOur wOrLDviEw?" - someone that can't or won't defend their position (probably).

So the question on the table is: Is it bad or wrong to kill all or nearly all the women, children, babies and in utero fetuses on earth, and if so why?

How strange that we pose this question so deviously, hoping to circle back to the idea that, "If the god that I choose to believe in did it, then its good by definition. And if there isn't the god that I believe in, then what difference does mass murder make anyway?" Even stranger we are going to appeal to the "ultimate morality" of the mass killer to prove that it's right. Imagine doing this for Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler.

Somebody killed millions of people including EVERY FETUS ON EARTH at one point. It's Jesus. So, we go to the killer and ask him if this is moral. Then we believe the answer offered. That okay with you? Is your moral agency, your sense of decency and right and wrong, so surrendered as to function this way?

The entire standard and epistemology of this system of religion is make-believe. It eschews all decency, ethics and responsibility to perpetrate what is in fact just one of the thousands of religious belief systems (and nothing more). Yahweh, why did you kill every fetus on earth? "Well, I'm love you know. And I'm perfectly moral so you say. So obviously, killing every fetus on earth then using me to argue against abortion is all perfectly moral, not to mention rational. And besides if it wasn't for me there would be no right and wrong, no morality. Only supernatural beings like me can decide what is right or wrong. Capisce?"

If God controlled what you do, you would be be yelling at Him for that too.

But he doesn't control what I do (or anything for that matter) because he's a myth.

I don't yell at god for anything. That would make as much sense as yelling at the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause.


Living in a world with religious people is like being surrounded by five-year-olds. It wouldn't matter except that the five-year-olds want everyone else to share their delusion, and they have the numbers to influence our society. It's really kind of a nightmare for those of us who are adults.

So I ask why Yahweh killed every fetus on earth and is now cited as an argument against abortion, and the Christian Caucus is utterly silent on it.

Yes.

I freely admit that I'm not the brightest star in the night sky. So, could you please repost the above response and bold the part that answered my question?

Thanks.

Wat?

I somehow missed your answer to my question.

I will gladly answer your question after you answer mine.

Have a great weekend!

The writers of the Bible were human, but yet wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Pretty much only rich people in the US give a hoot about the US Tax Code. Even infidels like Christopher Hitches gave high praise for the literary quality of the King James Version. Sayings we use every day like "the handwriting is on the wall" are from the Bible. Pretty good for a bunch of Iron Age Sheep Herders (to repeat a typically stupid trope used by the more ignorant infidels).


Logic itself is causally effete. Jesus Christ is the Logos that connects the immaterial (e.g. mathematics, the laws of logic) to the physical world. In a materialistic framework, math and logic don't really even exist, except in the brain. And yet reading a physics book is more like reading a math book.

No. Those are in a separate section of my splendid little booklet.


Sure, it might help to disprove the Bible's veracity. It would at the very least show that such defenders aren't acting in accordance with the Bible's own condemnation of lying.


Looks like China will soon have the largest Christian population in the whole world.

You should convert to whatever religion (or non-religion) you believe to be true.

(more to come...)

Yes it's wrong to slaughter all the babies, children and fetuses on earth. I'm sorry if your religion has you in a place where this needs to be spelled out, and the rhetorical form of the question won't suffice. It's wrong because human life has value and human beings have human rights and anyone purporting to have a sense of decency respects this.

Amen, brother!

Human life has value because we're all made in the image of God. It seems a bit harder to make a case that evolved pond scum has any intrinsic value. Our thoughts, in such a "scummy" worldview, are no more than chemical reaction in the brain; just so much "brain barf." I'm vomiting theism, and others are vomiting something else.

God gave everyone a conscience, which explains why everyone with "a sense of decency" believes that people killing other people for fun is abhorent.

Do you eat meat? If so, why do you believe that human life has value, while animal life doesn't.

Okay, you've "defended" killing every fetus on earth in the name of your religion, without defending it, because it can't be defended and you know it. The universe produced the human race, and as a social species we greatly value members of our species. We don't need any of the myriad of manufactured gods to explain valuing human life ... we just need reality. But reality is something you don't have on your side when you are presupposing for unreality and rejecting or spinning all reality that contravenes the doctrine. At every point where nature contravenes the religion, the true believer chooses the religion. The resulting inversion of reality and morality leads to, "It's okay with me if he kills every baby, child and fetus. I'll defend it as moral and righteous." And then use this abomination in your pro-life platform. Really, it's hard to top that for make believe epistemology. So you really can't say this slaughter of babies/children/fetuses by a god who IS LOVE is a problem ... and then using "him" as defense of an anti-abortion stance is a touch ungodlike, a touch irrational, a touch contradictory??

I have never defended the idea that people should kill unborn babies. God is sovereign over the entire universe, and He can do what He chooses with His creation. As Job noted, The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. (Job 1:21).

Humans can also be quite tribal; that is, humans tend to value people of their own ethnicity and religion more than those outside it. Yet, I don't believe anyone of good will believes that killing people of other races or religions is a good thing. Animals and people are both living things, so why is it okay to kill animals?

Since I don't believe in a "myriad of manufactured gods" any more than you do, I guess we're on the same page in that respect.

For the record, I would like to affirm to all with ears to hear and eyes to see, that I am very much Pro-Reality.

Nature doesn't "contravene" anything. Nature is value-neutral. Are you familiar with the so-called Naturalistic Fallacy? Essentially, the fallacy is committed when a prescriptive conclusion is deduced from descriptive premises. It can summarized as, "You can't deduce an ought from an is."

So, does nature determine what an abomination is?

What is your epistemology? Who or what is your ultimate authority, and why do you trust it?

God is almighty over all, while I am not. God is the potter, and I am the clay.

What book in all of human history has been simultaneously more praised and more condemned than the Bible? What book in human history has been more widely quoted (both favorably and unfavorably) than the Bible?

Well, I sore did want to complete my thoughts on why I believe the Bible is trustworthy.

Well, I'll give you real credit for not shying away. But all it is is apologetics. If there was a video of the early Christians getting drunk and making up stories and scriptures while raping children on the side, you would say it was god's mysterious, righteous will. And when it is pointed out that "his" inclination to dealing with peoples is quite similar to Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin ... you don't bat an eye. You've got the doctrine and dogma ready. If things are right and/or wrong, moral and/or immoral based on what they are in and of themselves, rather than by fiat of one of the thousands of gods, that would mean you can't be a mass killer and then say, "I'm always moral by definition." Yes, god can do whatever he wants if he's almighty. What does it say that he wants to do what Hitler and Pol Pot did? The god of love wants to kill and judge. Love keeps no record of wrongs, says the scripture, yet "he" kills and judges for doing wrong. A religious story book is a religious story book. If men of god are raping and covering up rape -- apologize/excuse it. If god killed every fetus on earth -- apologize/excuse it. If god is a bigot -- excuse it. If the doctrine is anti-reality, anti-fact, anti-science -- excuse it.

Yes, I am giving a defense of Christian theism. That's what apologetics is. Glad we're on the same page about what I'm doing here.

Actually, I think I'd be amazed that there were video recorders in the first century!

It's not "similar" at all.

God doesn't do what Hitler and Pol Pot did. God gives everyone the opportunity to spend an eternity in Heaven. Pretty sure neither Hitler or Pol Pot did that.

Quite so! God loves a lot of things. He loves justice, and He loves mercy. In the end, do you want to be a recepient of God's judgment or a recepient of God's mercy?

Quite so. As I said above, God loves justice and He loves mercy. You can have either one; which one do you want?

Yes, I am quite familiar with the Law of Identity. (I taught logic, you know.)

I actually have a worldview (Christian Theism) in which reality, facts and science make sense.

What is your worldview, and how does it account for reality, facts, science, and righteousness?