The comment continues,
Hate of other-god-believers: Deuteronomy-13:1-18, Leviticus-20:1-5
Just to clarify: Deuteronomy 13 does not reference other God believers—other people who likewise believe in the God of the Bible—but to other gods believers—other people who believe in false gods. These other people would come to Israel and urged them to,
go after other gods…and let us serve them…Let us go and serve other gods…of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth…Let us go and serve other gods.
But God is a god, are gods, it is all the same right? So what is the problem? Well, the commentator was kind enough to, apparently unknowingly, provide the answer by referencing Leviticus 20:1-5 which condemns the worship of Moloch which consisted of human/child sacrifices (which atheist do not condemn—just get back to condemning Jews!).
The comment continues,
Stone disobedient son to death: Deuteronomy-21:18-21, Leviticus-20:9
Considering that two references were provided one can only assume that this is a purposeful attempt to manipulate via emotionally charged assertions. This charge is ubiquitous in atheist circles and the more that this atheist talking point is expressed the more that it discredits that the one making it.
This is a very popular atheist talking point: note that the comment reference to a “disobedient son,” Dan Barker referenced “a stubborn and rebellious son,” Richard Dawkins referenced “disobedient children,” Sam Harris referenced children that “talk back to us,” but the Bible references stubborn, rebellious, disobedient, gluttonous, drunkards who “smiteth” and curse their parents and have already been chastened (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 21:18). The Talmud (Sandedrin 71a) basically makes the point that such severe restrictions are placed on the commandments that “There never was, and never will be, a wayward and defiant son” (or “stubborn and rebellious son”).
Also, as with any stoneable offense; at least two witnesses were required and the matter had to be litigated by the judges. This is all part of a very carefully regulated judicious system.
The comment continues,
Kill man, woman, child, livestock-Siege of Jericho-Joshua-6:21, 26
One thing that is not mentioned is that any war-like action by Israel was to begin with an offer of peace as, for example, is stated in Deuteronomy 20:10 states, “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.” Moreover, Jeremiah 18:8 states, “If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” Also, God performed stupendous miracles, such as the events during the exodus from Egypt, in order to get the attention of the Gentile Pagan nations so that they would repent and give up worshipping their false gods with their human/child sacrifices—God gave them centuries to repent.
Note that the commentator provided no absolute premise upon which to condemn any killing whatsoever.
The comment continues,
Divine plunder: Joshua-6:19, 24 Divine plunder by espionage & with assistance of prostitute[s]: Joshua-2:1, 6:25 Divine terror: Song of Moses-Deuteronomy-32:23-27.
The response here is much the same as the one above. The “Divine terror” is in reference to, as we have considered above, “foreign gods…They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they did not know, to new gods, new arrivals” the very gods who demanded human/child sacrifice—now that is terror.
Note that the commentator provided no absolute premise upon which to condemn plunder, divine plunder, espionage, prostitution, or divine terror.
The comment continues,
Leviticus 20 (page174-75) has sentences for all sexual-genital acts. [Gays at 20:13].
I do not know what “sexual-genital acts” are except that perhaps it means “sexual” acts performed with one’s “genitals”—or something. I am even less sure that “page174-75” is supposed to be referencing (maybe they actually have a Bible and think that all Bibles are similarly paginated regardless of size, shape, font, font size, etc.—just in case: these are not divinely inspired).
To begin with, note that Leviticus 20 begins with a condemnation of human/child sacrifice with specific reference to Moloch. The text forbids sexual relations with the following (Leviticus 18:6-23):
Adultery in general. A man who lies with his father’s wife. A man who lies with his daughter-in-law. A man who lies with a male as he lies with a woman. A man who marries a woman and her mother. A man or woman who mates with an animal. A man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter. A man who lies with a woman during her sickness…exposed her [menstrual] flow. Not to uncover the nakedness of one’s mother’s sister nor of your father’s sister. A man who lies with his uncle’s wife.
A man who takes his brother’s wife.
Not only is this good advice but much with which atheists could agree. The most shocking aspect of these commandments is that each and every one of these had to be stated because they were being practiced in Gentile Pagan nations. Thus, God states, “you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them.”
This particular litany of assertions and fallacies ends thusly,
And this is a very very small sample just the beginning!
And Revelation is the most absurd and hilarious of all!
This is an argument to ridicule. Also, just because something (such as abiogenesis for example) is “absurd and hilarious” does not mean that it is not true.
This commentator seems to be a pars pro toto whereby one seeks to define the whole by referencing a mere part. It is the fallacy of it’s in the Bible so it must be true or it’s in the Bible so God must approve of it. This is not the case, is illogical, is not in keeping with the Bible’s grammatical context, has never been claimed by Judeo-Christian doctrine. For example, when the Bible records lies told by people it is true that they lied but their lies where not true. Bottom line is that this objection disregards the fact that that the Bible both: prescribes and describes. Some actions are merely described and some are prescribed: examples of what to do and what not to do, examples of things that people have done in either case, etc.
Next, someone proposed “Some questions for you (edit)?” I am not sure what “(edit)” means but here are the questions:
Why does a benevolent and forgiving God condemn people in Hell for eternity for finite sins?
This question is premised upon a tel of misconceptions. Firstly, I assume that this person has a misconception as to what hell is and what it is all about in the first place. Secondly, the reason that hell is eternal is that the sin of the unrepentant is eternal which is to say that they have chosen to continue in, to live with and by, their sin by not accepting God’s offer of forgiveness. Thus, they choose to reject God and choose to live according to their sin.
Therefore, God has provided a place where they can go to get exactly what they want: to get away from God forever. Now, there is an interesting point to be made here: the Bible states that hell was not created for humans but for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41), humans can go there if that is what they want. This is interesting as hell was exclusively created for creatures for whom God’s existence was a non-issue—they rejected God and chose to hound humanity.
Thus, a benevolent and forgiving God condemns people in hell—they actually condemn themselves—because they reject His offer of forgiveness. Let us imagine that someone has fallen for the sorts of atheist talking points, fallacies and misconceptions that we have been considering (yes, even the ones with book, chapter and verse next to them) and they simply hate the God of the Bible—for whatever reason. If God forced them into heaven to live with Him for all of eternity that would be like hell for them and this would be unrighteous. Thus, they are given what they really want—eternal separation from God.
But what about the point of eternal hell for finite sins? That is just the point: they chose eternal separation from the God whom they reject. However and/or moreover, no one believes that the time of, let us employ the term “punishment” for metaphorical easy, is to be commensurate to the amount of time that it took to perform the crime. For example, how long does it take to shoot someone to death? Fractions of a second. Thus, we ought to throw them into prison for fractions of a second—right? No.
The questioner continued by stating,
And for the matter why would he condemn us if we dont [sic] believe in him. If he does that he must be a helluva ****** [expletive removed].
A lot of the above response applies to this one as well. There is some confusion here in that people are not condemned for not believing in God but because they choose to sin and choose to not be forgiven. But how can they choose to be forgiven by God if they do not believe in God? Good question but do not forget that the primary response is to clear up the confusion as I just did. I believe that a large part of it is that there is within human beings knowledge that we must be forgiven for our sins and that this is prima facie. It is likewise self-evident that with regards to past wrongdoings: we cannot keep track of them all but have also lost track of the people whom we have wronged. In this case, we cannot gain even finite human forgiveness. Furthermore, what if they refuse to forgive us? Well too bad, now it is their fault!? But we are not talking about skirting forgiveness or ignoring it. There is also the concept of forgiving ourselves which is a consoling delusion and more akin to making excuses since we could do as we please and simply declare ourselves forgiven by ourselves according to our own standards our own regulations and our own litigation.
Thus, it seems as if the ultimate answer, beyond psychological band-aids, is that transcendent forgiveness exists and is available.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.