An Anachronistic Message

On 07-28-11, I had an interesting conversation with a Christian @lauramzy. She did the usual bible quoting and unsupported assertions, followed by ranting in all capitals; you know, generally losing her cool. Only, in so doing the usual quoting et cetera, she gave me an opportunity to see where people get that their deity is a loving peaceful deity contrary to everything I know about it.

The first Bible verse I received was 1 John 4:7

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Now the first thing one will notice is that this verse is claiming in the third person to know god and further to know god is love. Ok, interesting observation considering the content of the books that precede this particular verse. This is not, however, evidence that the Christian god is love; it is merely a claim of such. And in the context in which this verse was written it seems to be a sermon of praise and platitudes. No one, well except Christians grasping at straws, would expect this to be factual anymore than public comments at a wedding reception.


Now, this next one contradicts her claim in that her deity is professing to do the fighting as opposed to diplomacy. Deuteronomy 3:22

Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you.

The previous verse has an interesting assertion about:

 Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings

So, this just doesn't sound like a peace loving god which is directly contradicting her claim. Is she confusing her own feelings of security for those of peace? I don't understand why she would use it unless it just fit her search criteria and she didn't read further. Most importantly, this is a case of a first person narration of a particular opinion not that of direct observation, nor is it a record of any deity making such a claim. In the next verse Exodus 14:14 is the same problem:

The LORD shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.

It is starting to look like my interlocutor searched for the word peace and love in an attempt to find confirmation for her theses regarding her deity's disposition. Again, the verse she has chosen shows not diplomacy but vigilante violence. So far, no sign of a loving, peaceful god even in her choice of verses.


Then in her next exchange she actually asks if I am embarrassed about my stance. This as she proffers a verse straight out of the battle of David and Goliath 1 Samuel 17:47

And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hands.

This deity offers the enemy up for slaughter. I would not consider this peaceful under any circumstance. In the verse preceding the above David is bragging about the Lord delivering Goliath so that David will take his head. If this is a peaceful, loving deity, what would a violent deity be? In my view this is a nationalistic god of war. It should not be surprising as Yahweh Sabaoth means God of War or Armies, yet it is the rare fundamentalist that knows these facts.


Still haven't seen evidence of the peaceful god of which my interlocutor writes. I hate to tell her that after many  decades of study, nothing even close to a peaceful, loving deity has emerged. The verses she has presented so far are not evidence of anything of the sort. From what I have learned from reading the bible, Yahweh is a god of war, and even considering her quoted verses this still stands, so far. Many of her quoted verses were clipped. Out of 1Samuel 25:33 she removed 33b & 33c but cited 33a & 33d.

And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand.

But this verse isn't talking to, or about, Laura's deity; rather, it reflects David's thanking of Abigail for calming him down. While it is claimed in a previous verse that the Lord sent Abigail, this is not what the cited verse is about as David mentions the advice. Considering that David is also a literary construct, as are most of the main characters of the Bible, this verse is, at most, a bit in the mythology of David. I can't help but to think that there has to be better examples that @lauramzy could have cherry-picked in her attempt to frustrate my case.

Psalm 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Now Psalm 11:5 as she quoted it: "The soul of the Lord hates those who love violence," is close enough, but the next verse shows that the Lord hateth those that mirror himself. 

Psalm 11:6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

 Of course, these are verses of lyrical poetry, so their value as to factual anything is vacuous. Still, it is easy to see that the authors viewed their deity as, well, violent. In my opinion, this character of Hebrew polytheistic mythology reflects the barbarity, to be precise, of the era.

 Psalms 33:16 A king is not saved by his great army...

This is talking about being saved spiritually not by armies but by favor in the eyes of the Lord. Only, it is but a few verses later that the violence of this deity are highlighted in that mankind should be in fear of this god of war. Psalm 33:18

Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;

I was 6-years-old when I first realized that no one should fear a loving deity. I read The Book of Mormon in the second grade after reading Wagons West about Joseph Smith & Brigham Young. I was then convinced that religion was a fantasy; it was started by the idea that no one should fear someone that loves them. I finished the Bible the first time at 11 (my sixth grade teacher said she could read it in a year). I was never so credulous as to believe Santa or the Easter Bunny—that I can remember (I told my 4 and 5 year old brothers that those things were pretend just before my sixth birthday). I was motivated by the word fear in all the ecclesiastical discourse to start finding my own evidence, and I never looked back. The next proffering was:

 Psalms 20:7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.

While this is another case where mankind's war power is put in a secondary position in relation to faith, it says nothing of the deity's passiveness or love. And in a verse just previous to this one:

 Psalm 20:3 Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice; Selah.

Burnt sacrifices have never struck me as something needed by a loving entity of any kind. Am I missing something? I know we are taking about lyrical verse that describes someone's perception and their practices in relationship with this entity not the acts of the entity themselves, but it is indicative of the verses being presented as evidence of a peaceful loving deity. Then she sends Psalm 140:1-2 along with the typical insults of those suffering from cognitive dissonance and the fear engendered in their faith as a deterrent from apostasy.

Protect me from the violent who...stir up wars continually. r u satisfied yet? do u feel stupid yet?

As far as a relationship with the deity goes, this verse is asking for protection from violent sorts. Then in just a few verses after, this author is asking the deity to: Let burning coals fall upon them: let them be cast into the fire; into deep pits, that they rise not up again (140:10). Again, an appeal to the violence innate in this belief system, and that vengeance seemingly expected from their deity. So, to this point Laura Ramzy has shown nothing evidentiarily to support her claim that her deity is a peaceful loving entity, and I have used the same chapters or psalms to show that she is, in fact, wrong in her stance without, as yet, referencing my own material evidence.


If she had done as I and many others have done and actually read the books, she would know what I and others know about this war god of Hebrew mythology, but she, like many of her mindset, have let interpreters, middlemen, woo woo salespeople, and charlatans tell her what they want her to know concerning this deity regardless of the literary evidence and historical facts. People read into the verses what they want to see instead of reading the verses as they are written.


People need to understand that the Bible really is that bad, and the reason it is that bad is because the book was trapped by the advent of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440 (Gutenberg Bible, Vulgate, 1450s) in the configuration that it's currently in after almost a millennium of exclusively priestly interpretation. This is the translation from which the King James version was taken in 1611. It wasn't even until the Council of Trent 1546 CE that the Catholic Church canonized the books in the Bible and still there are many different canons (ie. Greek, Ethiopian, Syriac, etc.).  Prior to this, even long after, the public was not permitted to read the Bible; in fact, many English translations were destroyed for this very reason.


Maybe, it is because of this betrayed trust, by those she accepted interpretations from, that she is motivated to get so violently defensive of her view: misdirected anger? Alas, this is nothing we haven't come to expect from the professed Christians of the world. 


Please note that there are many of these maxims I whole-heartily agree with, for instance, this next bit on wisdom.

 Ecclesiastes 9:18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war

Actually, other than the idea of sin expressed therein the rest of the verse is quite compelling if one merely replaces sinner with bungler (NRSV), delusionally dishonest, malcontent, or psychotic, etc. Ecc 9:18 "Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good." As sinner encompasses much considered thought crimes and innately human drives as commanded by supposedly absolute moral dictate. This is not, however, the words of my interlocutor's deity. No! The words are those of the "Teacher" or 'Gatherer," so some assume it is the mythical character Solomon son of David (also a literary construct), yet, even though these are words to live by, they are not evidence supporting Laura's claim of a peaceful loving deity.

  Hosea 1:7 I will save...not by bow, sword, battle, horses, horsemen

A few verses before this one the author puts the words,
Hosea 1:4-5

1:4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
1:5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel, in the valley of Jezreel.

1:6b ... for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

into the mouth of this deity. Also, the saving expressed in 1:7, if somewhat ambiguous, is by mercy on a favored people. Only, in light of the previous verses expressing revenge, I'm not seeing peaceful at all, and if we ignore the Documentary Hypothesis, the polytheistic origins of Hebrew mythology, and the constant redaction by the Deuteronomists et al. this Yahweh is supposedly the creator of all people; so why is it not love but nationalism being expressed? I see literary evidence of what is believed to be a nationalistic regional deity, a local war god—not a loving anything. 


The next verse she quotes in her continued attempt to assail me with her proof is:

  Zechariah 4:6 Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit

Only the whole verse reads "Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." Where Lord of Hosts translates as God of Armies, and this is supposedly an angel conferring this information. And what is it that is by spirit transmitted? In Zech 5:3 it says: "Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth," again, not peaceful or loving is it?

  Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies; pray for persecutors

This is obviously Mt 5:44 not 5:43 that she marked it as. This is from the Sermon on the Mount which is actually taken from a much older (maybe 7 centuries older, Buddha) philosophy than this narrative which was written after the beginning of the second century from the evidence I have gathered. This verse also follows a narrative in which  it is commanded to pluck out an eye if it should offend one. That the Earth is this God's footstool; so, although it has its applications in the real world, the philosophy is not practiced by this narrative character nor his father as exemplified in Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Mark 9:50 Be at peace with each other.

In a continuation of the verses from Mark 9:43 that have this Jesus character telling the congregation to "pluck an eye," "cut off a foot," or  "the hand." What could be more violent, even barbaric, than this? This is a case of the writer's request put in the mouth of Jesus, not that of a deity. Also, it can be argued that this is in the context of nationalism, the in-group, actually the believers themselves not humanity at large.

Romans 12:17 "Return no one evil for evil...live at peace with everyone" did i make a point now too?

 This is a sermon transmitted via Epistle by Paul/Saul not any recount of a deity's actions. People are being told how to act not shown how their deity has or does act. This has real world applications but is not the evidence for a peaceful loving deity. It is an ethic that some humans practice without the sermon.

Romans 12:21 Overcome evil with good

This is still Paul communicating through the Epistles his own ethics (In fact, Chapters 12 & 13 are full of ethics that are not attributed to the Gospel Jesus character. Could this be because Paul knew of no historical Jesus?) 

Romans 14:19 "Make every effort to do what leads to peace..." how about now?

Again, a sermon, but this is concerning restrictions of food, the eating of meat, and being thought highly of by one's peers. Laura has not produced one iota of evidence showing the peaceful loving deity. So far, only the snide remarks of an arrogant, if not a little frightened, Christian showing all the symptoms of mindlessly adhering to socially supported inculcation with culturally accepted dogma.

1 Peter 3:11 "Turn from evil; do good; seek peace; pursue it." next time u speak of my religion do ur research.

 This isn't talking about her deity. This is in reference to the subjection of women to their husbands, and the husband's piety as a result of the wife's practices while both of them can attain higher levels of morality by thinking before reacting. In historical context this is a lesson in ethics that common people of this time will not find, for educational systems serving the masses are still some 1600 years hence. Note that my interlocutor displays the arrogance of ignorance quite prevalent in most theistic discourse with the fundamentalist adherent. Also note that it is all too obvious that she has yet to read the book she claims as the base for her world view. 
Relying instead on the woo woo merchants I made mention of earlier. And, yes, I do pity her.


Then after some time to reflect, I'm guessing, Laura Ramzy sends Proverbs 9:7-12 to me. Does anyone think it was not because of the words "arrogant cynic" in her choice of translation. Only, a more accurate translation would be "scoffer" in historical context. Alas, I tried very hard not to be either. And if one actually reads Proverbs 9 and considers it in historical context, that is, noting that Hebrew scripture was the basic education of most commoners of that era. Realizing, still further, that if one was a Jewish shepherd of the Diaspora, even a Nomad, this was Higher Education as there was nothing better to know 2200 years ago. Though Laura takes it out of historical context, and, for that matter, context in general. This whole proverb is a call to those searching for wisdom, and even though I disagree with the god claims in it, because we have far to much evidence to the contrary today, we can all agree that it is a good idea to seek out wisdom. Proverbs 9:7-12

General Maxims

Whoever corrects a scoffer wins abuse;
   whoever rebukes the wicked gets hurt. 
A scoffer who is rebuked will only hate you;
   the wise, when rebuked, will love you. 
Give instruction to the wise, and they will become wiser still;
   teach the righteous and they will gain in learning. 
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
   and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. 
For by me your days will be multiplied,
   and years will be added to your life. 
If you are wise, you are wise for yourself;
   if you scoff, you alone will bear it.

Here is a link to the search of all, or most, of our correspondence. I will let you, dear reader, decide who this verse could help the most. And I still recommend reading this entire proverb about Lady Wisdom, who could have been Asherah, wife of El, at one time. Tomorrow, because this post is already too long, I will discuss the heinous acts that won Yahweh his title as a blood soaked deity of mythology.

In Response to Christian Criticism

I seem to have started a running gun fight with Christians at the Wall Street Journal over what is basically a book advertisement blogged in connection to this past Easter. The entry is the typical Lee Strobel spongy assertions based on absolutely no evidence, and, of course, none is provided, nor forthcoming. If one wishes to read all of my comments on that blog text search Beachbum on the threads page, as they are all entered under my name. But I could not get this particular comment to load so I have put it here for those interested. I have also included the comment from William Munney (unaltered, as would be expected) in which my comment is a response.


From William Munney:
1:21 am May 8, 2011

“If people believed as I do, maybe we could finally have peace on Earth. Religions have had thousands of years, thousands of blood-soaked, hate-filled years. Let’s give reason and rationality a chance; superstitions have had theirs and failed miserably.”

Right BB, because atheists and other “rational” people of that kind never hate anyone, right? Apparently you have either not seen or have turned a blind eye to the real hatred(having an opinion opposite to yours is not hatred, much to liberal’s chagrin), in the form of anti-Christian hatred from people who hate you(or try to intimidate you, or discriminate against you, or kill you) just because you believe in Jesus. Just as Jesus said would happen. Why don’t you rally against the real bigots?.

“for as Einstein said, genius is limited, but ignorance is infinite.” Indeed. And maybe you should take a cue from him. Einstein also said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

If you have such faith in your atheism, why do you come here to try and persuade others to abandon God, whom you think is nonsense? Just be confident in your religion(which is what atheism is). Your “god” doesn’t ask you to spread it’s gospel to “non-believers” – as Jesus did for Christians – and there is no hope for salvation in your religion, thus no reason to “help” others reach salvation, so why do you come here to try “to pervert the right ways of the Lord”, “oh child of the devil “?

And My Response:

I am truly sorry that you and many like you have been inculcated into the "suffering Christian" mythology. As you put it, "...anti-Christian hatred ... try to intimidate ... discriminate against ... or kill you ... just because you believe in Jesus." This is, in fact, Christian propaganda.

Have Christians been persecuted as a result of their adherence to their particular dogmas and doctrines? Of course, mostly by other Christian sects. Have Christians gone to war over the belief in a particular god or prophet? Again, yes! Only, it was with every other institution of superstitious claims known throughout history, and they persecuted as harshly (even more so, that's why Christianity disseminated) as they were persecuted. Worst of all, Christians have persecuted their own, based on claims of supernatural authority, ie. God(s) commanded it, eg. the Bible says (Exodus 22:18) we should not suffer a witch, (or Sodomites, or Amalekites, ect. ect.) to live.

You see, first and foremost, religions, all religions, are tools of politics and have been since their inception. This is not to say all governments, as should be the case in the US, but it is manipulation through fear, segregation through in-group vs. out-group (ie. racism, nationalism, denominationalism, Christian Supremacy, etc.), as well as most of the other baser emotions such as xenophobia, homophobia, etc. Also, thought control so that, "it doesn't matter what the evidence shows via science, history, anthropology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.; the (pseudo) facts are as this Evangelist, Politician, Mormon, Creationist, Capitalist, Libertarian, Corporatist, etc., etc., purports," is something other than totally [insert expletive here] laughable. 

Politicians have known for millennia that nothing turns a group into an easily manipulated mob (for fun and profit) like claims of persecution from those belonging to an out-group. (By using fictitious claims of persecution about the Roman Emperor Nero, a Roman Church of some 3 centuries hence was able to simultaneously get Romans to denounce their Roman-ness and embrace Catholicism; thereby, converting Roman citizens into Roman Catholics in short order.) They've also known, for almost as long, that similar claims have worked preemptively to justifying the implementation of policies that lead to atrocities whether those claims are fabricated, exaggerated, or merely elaborated, for the mob mentality is nothing, if not, frenzied impetuousness amplified to the point of mindless violence. Yes, the persecuted Christian is a fabrication.

But, to answer your question: "Why don’t [I] rally against the real bigots?" Considering that a bigot is a person with strong and prejudiced views who will not listen to opinions differing from their own, I can only conclude that—I am, all of them.

From my point of view, a person's opinions should be held up to the light of verifiable knowledge and weighed in the free market of ideas against the evidence and the facts gleaned therefrom. That's what I like about logical thought, it strives to eliminate opinion from the conclusion by putting a high value on evidence. This actually puts a twist on an idiom that is currently circulating in the zeitgeist that "a person is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts." In my view a person is entitled to their opinion, or belief, if they can substantially support it with facts based on evidence. Furthermore, because people act on their opinions in ways that affect us all, ie. the political, commercial, environmental, as well as public arena, those opinions, those beliefs, should be scrutinized, debated, in the free market of ideas by people with respect for evidence. Else, a self-proclaimed prophet that believes he can claim several pre-teen and teenaged girls would be free (from jail) to do as he pleased, or maybe, like Mohammad, become the mythological basis for a world religion. Or, how about misquoting famous figures out of context to gain authoritative appeal?

Your quoting of Albert Einstein is nothing short of an appeal to authority made worse by your misapprehension of its meaning as to be, in some way, referring to one of the Abrahamic religions. It was not.

It is from, Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941

And I quote, in part:

"Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein

So it is that many religiose misinterpret Einstein's famous statement suggesting that Einstein was evincing respect for religious credulity. Science without religion is lame, merely because "science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." Whereas religion without science is blind because religion has no access to the truth—it was, as Einstein expressed it—nothing other than the "source of feeling" this aspiration toward something greater than itself cannot be generated via the scientific method that is gleaned from the same sphere as religious aspirations. A purely human motivation in my view that when combined with an educated faith in the concept that the natural parameters we currently understand through evidentiary means can very easily be projected over space and time that is currently understood to be exactly like the here and now. This statement both removes any claim to truth from religions, and at the same time, imbues the human psyche with both the origins of higher aspirations, and the foresight to discern and understand truth of our universe.

Nowhere is this sentiment more succinct than in this statement: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."—Albert Einstein

You have obviously garnered your misapprehension of atheism from those of a biased bent on the subject. Understanding that there isn't any evidence supporting anything supernatural, let alone a personal deity, is not even remotely religious. Alas, I understand that your comments are an attempt to elevate your belief system by equating atheism with it; do you not see the logical absurdity? Do you not see that religions have used this same method, either purposefully or unconsciously, with everything that has always been human, natural, even culturally innate? You write of salvation as though it was something "out there" something that is attained from a religion; it is not. Humanity is the guardian of its own authority, creator of its own morality and it has always been so. We are the guardians of our universe. I have no lord, no master and neither should you.

As one with an atheistic view and the education that supports it, I understand that the characters portrayed through the Abrahamic religions, which is how you most likely understand them, are, in reality, literary constructs, which have only survived due to their political usefulness. So, in addition to stopping the manipulation of you by way of your emotions and opinions, through evidentiarily unsupported claims, known as religious dogmas, which I addressed above, there is but one reason why I am here: to help others!

In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, I am attempting to free our priest-ridden civil government  from the lowest grade of ignorance of which religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thanks.

EOB

Now, if you're not interested in my previous comments, I can understand as I am honestly over-it myself. But, I would recommend reading some of them as I didn't bother responding to the absolutely moronic cracks. Hopefully, they have been, and will be, educational.

Thanks