16 April 2008

The Top Ten Biblical Massacres

And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him ... and he [Samson] found a new jawbone of an ass ... and slew a thousand men therewith. Judges 15:14-15
Today is the sad anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre, the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. On 16 April 2007, 32 students were killed and many more wounded before the shooter, Sueng-Hui Cho, committed suicide.

The massacre was one of the worst in U.S. history, but it was small indeed by biblical standards.

Here is a list of massacres from the Bible, in ascending order by the number of victims. The list includes only those with a single killer where the number of victims is specified.

  1. Elisha (with help from God) sent two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of his bald head. 2 Kings 2:22-23

  2. Abimelech killed 69 of his brothers on a stone. Judges 9:5, BT

  3. Doeg the Edomite killed 85 priests and all the men, women, children, infants, oxen, donkeys, and sheep with a sword. 1 Samuel 22:18-19, BT

  4. Elijah (and God) burned to death 102 men. 2 Kings 1:10-12

  5. David killed 200 Philistines to purchase his first wife with their foreskins. 1 Samuel 18:25-27, BT

  6. Abishai killed 300 men with a spear. 2 Samuel 23:18, 1 Chronicles 11:20, BT

  7. The chief of David's captains killed either 300 (1 Chronicles 11:11) or 800 (2 Samuel 23:8) men with a spear. (Sometimes it's hard to correctly count the number of dead bodies in a massacre.)

  8. Elijah killed 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest. 1 Kings 18:22-40
    (The total in this massacre may have been 850 if it included the priests of the groves.)

  9. Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad. Judges 3:31, BT

  10. Samson killed 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. Judges 15: 14-15, BT

Update 1: Forgot the 85 priests that that were killed by Doeg the Edomite. (Thanks Aquaria.)

Update 2: Corrected the confusion between Elijah's massacres. (Thanks David.)

45 comments:

Michael said...

Actually, the worst school mass murder in American history was in Bath, Michigan, when a school board member who was upset about increasing property taxes, rigged the school building with dynamite and pyrotol. On May 18, 1927, he detonated the explosives, killing 46 children and injuring scores more. More than half of the explosives did not detonate or many more would have died. But that was not a school "shooting".

Jim Thompson said...

Number 4 is my favorite children's Bible story. Kill 200 men and
castrate them and bring the parts
back to buy your wife.

Some great family values.

Jason said...

History sure is violent.

Steve Wells said...

So you think these silly stories are history, eh Jason?

You believe that Samson killed 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass?

How about Balaam's talking donkey? Is that history, too?

Jason said...

That sounds about right. Nice one, Steve.

Aquaria said...

What about Doeg the Edomite, who killed 85 priests of Nob? David, of course, is in the middle of this saga.

Anon said...

I love the Christian response about the discrepancy over how many people David's chief captain killed.

From:
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20050306.htm

"Lest the believer be discouraged or the unbeliever feel bolstered in his opposition to the accuracy of the Bible..."

I would hope the believer would be discouraged as much (if not more) by the fact that God seems perfectly okay with the killing of hundreds of people.

"...it should be noted that occurrences such as this are few and far between."

Even if this were true, it only takes one error to shatter the concept of inerrancy claimed by many churches.

<< The nature of the discrepancy regards material of very minor consequence. >>

"Very minor consequence"? 300 people dead, 800 dead, hey, what's the diff?

I'm sure the families wouldn't even have noticed the extra 500 were gone. (Mommy, didn't I used to have a Daddy?)

Maybe if the good book was 500 off how many shekels someone had, that may not be all that important in the grand scheme of things. But you would think the mass loss of human life might merit more careful accounting.

Then again, I guess when you've got a book where millions of people are killed by your god (or allowed to be killed while your god cheers on the murderer or at best sits idly by), a few hundred more lives lost here and there must not seem all that important.

David said...

Re #4. Didnt Elijia have the contest vs Baal in 1 Kings(18:22, 40, 46)? The body count there was 450. The 102 from 2 Kings(1:12-12) were 2 captains and 100 men. Still a good body count (or not since they were consumed by fire) but I wouldn't count this as a "prayer contest" wich God vs Baal definately was

Tari Akpodiete said...

well, the biggest murderer in the bible - and for the stupidest reasons - is 'god' himself. EvilBible.com is one of my fave sites ever. i just love showing it to die-hard christians who like to pontificate, but who really don't know what is in the bible. with regard to murder stuff, check out - http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

here's a quote that is fully supported by bible passages: "In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or not being a virgin on your wedding night. In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of God's irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport. There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children."

David said...

What about the murder of the Egyptians' firstborn? Human and livestock alike... one per household... certainly in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

Zach said...

And what about Noah's flood? That certainly killed just about everybody that wasn't a fish.

WordzGuy said...

You might be overlooking the biggest mass murder of them all, wherein the Lord Our God, you shall have no others before him, wiped out all human and animal life on earth save Noah and his little boatload. Although he did promise, it's true, that he wouldn't do that again. ("Sorry.")

Yer more sophisticated Christian will point out that the deity who seems to relish murder is primarily an Old Testament kind of guy, whereas the "good news" of the newer testament is that it's all about love, love, love. In practice, of course, this turns out to be more of an abstract concept than a code for daily behavior; the Lord could not possibly have meant that we are obliged to love people who are not Christians just like us. And anyway, it's not like the messiah didn't have his tantrums now and again, although he did not personally smite down his enemies, it's true.

David said...

Actually, I was taught as a tot that Noah's flood killed the fish too, except for the ones who stuck close by the ark

Sterling "Chip" Camden said...

@WordzGuy: even in the New Testament there are a few examples of God smiting people. My favorite is the story of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-10) wherein God smites the couple because they fibbed about how much of their gain from a land sale they gave to the church. And just in case we wondered whether they brought on their own deaths through a sense of guilt or anxiety, Peter predicts the second one.

Aquaria said...

Number 4 is my favorite children's Bible story. Kill 200 men and
castrate them and bring the parts
back to buy your wife.


You forgot the punchline: Even though you're sleeping with her brother (Jonathan).

sconnor said...

Wordzguy said,"Yet more sophisticated Christian will point out that the deity who seems to relish murder is primarily an Old Testament kind of guy, whereas the "good news" of the newer testament is that it's all about love, love, love."

Yeah, it kind of makes you wonder why it says in Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord All-Powerful, and I never change.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm?

"God, so atrocious in the Old Testament, so attractive in the New--the Jekyll and Hyde of sacred romance."
-- Mark Twain - Notebook, 1904

Brian said...

@Wordzguy: The response you name wouldn't come from a "more sophisticated" Christian at all, since that position is unambiguously heretical according to every Christian tradition (whether or not individual Christians are always aware of it) and has been recognized explicitly as such since the second century.

And for what it's worth, much of the Christian tradition has not accepted these stories as flatly 'historical' precisely because, if they were meant according to the most literal sense, they would plainly conflict with the character of the God who delivered Israel from slavery and who, in Christ, loved the world even to the point of death. Other meanings were found there instead, according to the rule of St Augustine that no interpretation of the Bible should stand that does not recommend love of God and neighbor (and enemy). (None of which is to say, of course, that the Christian tradition denies that the judgment of God is real and sometimes terrible, and comes down even--perhaps most often--on the heads of those who love him.)

WordzGuy said...

>that position

Which position is heretical?

>whether or not individual Christians are always aware of it

I think that's a great deal of the point here -- unlike students of theology, many people who grew up in the Christian tradition cannot articulate the evolution of thinking that reconciles a murderous deity with the message of the messiah. Evidence for that is that a vocal minority claims literal interpretation of the Bible (to the point of deeply distoring any archeological or geological evidence that might contradict with it), and which invokes the wrathful Old Testament God today to bring punishment down upon those who do not agree with these people. Anne Lamott: "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

Brian said...

Sorry for my lack of clarity; what's heretical is the idea that the God of the OT is one of punishment, and the God of the NT is one of love, love, love. Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed (I wish it were unnecessary to say) that God is changeless and eternal love--though certainly not a 'love' that excludes punishment or discipline.

You're right to say that the trouble is that many Christians fall into such heresy, sometimes vocally and with unfortunate influence, which must be admitted as a failure on the church's part to properly form its members. But it's also true that these kinds of passages are just hard to know what to do with, and always have been hard for Christians and Jews alike. I am a student of theology, and I usually just try to forget about them, to my shame. (The early church talked about such passages as the 'meat' of Scriptures, as opposed to its 'milk' whose messages are clear and much more obviously serve the life of love. The meat, they thought, is rich and wonderful, but should only very carefully be given to the younger in faith--not because of any elitism, but precisely to avoid the terrible misinterpretations to which these texts lend themselves.)

WordzGuy said...

@Brian -- very interesting, thanks for your thoughtful
clarification on this.

sconnor said...

"Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed (I wish it were unnecessary to say) that God is changeless and eternal love--though certainly not a 'love' that excludes punishment or discipline."

Yes, it is what they affirm, but punishing or administering discipline, that includes massive suffering and death, is the complete antithesis of love.

Punishing and administering discipline in the form of suffering and death is not constructive, nor beneficial. And it is the complete opposite of the New Testaments teaching of how much one should forgive "...Jesus answered, "I tell you, (about forgiveness) not seven times, but seventy-seven times." -- Matthew 18:22

--S.

Jason said...

Scripture doesn't teach an omnibenevolent God, neither in the OT or NT and it's a mistake for anyone, Christians included, to claim as such. God punishes, God kills, God blesses, God gives life. This is what God does.

Brian said...

@sconnor: I tend to agree with you, but I belong to a self-consciously pacifist tradition (Mennonite) which has always believed that Christ overcame every form of violence and death--so the church no longer acknowledges their power nor makes use of them. For just the reason you say, forgiveness is seen as the new and greatest power. Other traditions would disagree that the church can never take life, but (in complicated ways) they would affirm that such a terrible act--and they would always think it that taking life, in itself, is terrible and belongs only to the world's sin--would need to have their place in a broader context of love.

@Jason, that's absurd. If God is not entirely love, entirely good, even in his punishment, then he's a wicked and fickle despot and deserves no worship at all.

Jason said...

Brian,

What evidence do you have to suggest God is omnibenevolent?

McGuire said...

The Bible.org explanation of Gods bear execution duo is highly amusing (emphasis mine);

This seems harsh, but God and His leaders have, on occasion, acted harshly...

If God is love, then he's fair to say that it loves to kill.

Sure, some will provide justifications for these actions... though I guess Osama Bin Laden, Hitler & others... were also rather eloquent in their reasonings - should we worship them too?

Jason said...

There's no indication God 'loves' killing. In fact, God wishes that "no man should perish" (2 Pet 3:9).

sconnor said...

Jason said, "There's no indication God 'loves' killing. In fact, God wishes that "no man should perish" (2 Pet 3:9)."

Well god can keep on wishing, because he doesn't mind if a person who takes another life, perishes.

Genesis 9:5-6 "I created humans to be like me, and I will punish any animal or person that takes a human life. If an animal kills someone, that animal must die. And if a person takes the life of another, that person must be put to death."

So then someone kills the person who took a life; does that mean someone must kill that person and then that person has to be killed and on and on and on?

--S.

Jason said...

S,

My point was that there's no indication God "loves" killing, as was originally stated.

does that mean someone must kill that person and then that person has to be killed and on and on and on?

Not unless there's Scriptural evidence supporting this.

fabio said...

Isn´t Lord of the Rings a much better fairy tale ?? And more precise too ?? after all MR. Tolkien was a scholar ...

sconnor said...

Jason said,
"My point was that there's no indication God "loves" killing, as was originally stated."

Right, I know what your initial point was, but then you stated, "God wishes that "no man should perish" (2 Pet 3:9)."

Which is contradicted with this, Genesis 9:5-6 "I created humans to be like me, and I will punish any animal or person that takes a human life. If an animal kills someone, that animal must die. And if a person takes the life of another, that person must be put to death."

If he wished no man to perish, why does he decree that someone who kills has to perish?

Does that mean someone must kill that person and then that person has to be killed and on and on and on?

Not unless there's Scriptural evidence supporting this.

Genesis 9:5-6 "I created humans to be like me, and I will punish any animal or person that takes a human life. If an animal kills someone, that animal must die. And if a person takes the life of another, that person must be put to death."

So scripturaly speaking, god decrees that if a life is taken then the person taking the life must be put to death. So if a person puts to death that person, now he has taken a life, which god decrees that his life must be taken -- and on and on and on.

Your Bible god is not worthy of worship he is not even worthy of being a crap stain in my underwear. How can anyone worship an all-loving, creator, God, who would cause the suffering and deaths of innocent children? How could anyone worship a supposed, all-loving god who let's millions of children, suffer -- all individuals, with their own hopes and dreams and loves, whose lives have been cut short, leaving misery, devastation and despair in their wake. Innocent children have suffered and died from heinous diseases, starvation, unclean water, natural destruction, war, genocide, horrendous, sadistic and unimaginable ways. Why would I put any amount of faith in a God who would let this happen?

How can I possibly worship and have faith in a God that lets cruel, inhuman, unimaginable, mass suffering, happen?

How can I worship and have faith in a god, who as part of his creation (the system he created), would allow egregious suffering, on a massive level?

In god's ultimate, infinite wisdom, couldn't he have achieved, what he wanted to do, without all the sick, cruel, horrific suffering in the world?

Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, have the capacity to bestow free will on his earthly children, achieve all his goals, without the monstrosities of human suffering? Presumably, in heaven, we are not robots and have free will, apparently without any kind of suffering.

I just can't get past an all-loving god using suffering, in his creation or letting suffering be a by-product of his creation.
Loving and suffering are two diametrically opposing terms. If god allows suffering, causes suffering or uses suffering as a tool for learning or uses it as a punishment, all god is -- is a cruel, vindictive, sadistic, megalomaniac, only worthy of complete and utter contempt! And anyone (Jason) defending this crazy, brutal, violently destructive, sadomasochist should be thoroughly evaluated and held in the same contempt.

--S.

Jason said...

Sconnor said: If he wished no man to perish, why does he decree that someone who kills has to perish?

Because that person broke one of God's commandments and under the old law, this was punishable by death.

So scripturaly speaking, god decrees that if a life is taken then the person taking the life must be put to death. So if a person puts to death that person, now he has taken a life, which god decrees that his life must be taken -- and on and on and on.

The problem is there’s no Scriptural evidence supporting this “on and on and on” method of retribution. Have a read through the OT laws regarding murder. The answer to your questions are there.

Your Bible god is not worthy of worship he is not even worthy of being a crap stain in my underwear.

Unnecessary and disrespectful. A little more maturity would be appreciated.

How can anyone worship an all-loving, creator, God, who would cause the suffering and deaths of innocent children?

Problem solved if the children all grow up to be as wicked as their parents. The point is, God doesn't owe His creation anything. He's fair and just, asking only that people do what He says. If they don't, they pay the consequences. It's a simple equation.

How could anyone worship a supposed, all-loving god who let's millions of children, suffer -- all individuals, with their own hopes and dreams and loves, whose lives have been cut short, leaving misery, devastation and despair in their wake. Innocent children have suffered and died from heinous diseases, starvation, unclean water, natural destruction, war, genocide, horrendous, sadistic and unimaginable ways.

The vast majority of these are the fault of man, not God.

Why would I put any amount of faith in a God who would let this happen?

Because you also know God is patient and longsuffering and blesses those who follow His commandments.

How can I possibly worship and have faith in a God that lets cruel, inhuman, unimaginable, mass suffering, happen?

Man has personal responsibility. Your issue is with wicked human beings, not God.

...And anyone (Jason) defending this crazy, brutal, violently destructive, sadomasochist should be thoroughly evaluated and held in the same contempt.

Argumentum ad populum. If you’d like to intelligently discuss the topic of suffering and fairness by looking at Scripture, I’d be more then happy to do so, whether here or on my site.

sconnor said...

Jason,

Sconnor said: If he wished no man to perish, why does he decree that someone who kills has to perish?

Jason said, Because that person broke one of God's commandments and under the old law, this was punishable by death.

But isn't it breaking a commandment when one kills? If a person executes a murder isn't he breaking the commandment thou shalt not kill?

So scripturaly speaking, god decrees that if a life is taken then the person taking the life must be put to death. So if a person puts to death that person, now he has taken a life, which god decrees that his life must be taken -- and on and on and on.

Jason said, The problem is there’s no Scriptural evidence supporting this “on and on and on” method of retribution. Have a read through the OT laws regarding murder. The answer to your questions are there.

Once it is scripturaly stated that you must take the life of a person who kills, then isn't the executioner a killer, also? Then, by god's very decree, doesn't his life have to be taken? He killed someone, he is a murderer and under god's commandment he too should be put to death. I'm not the idiot who made the asinine decree; your mixed up god did, evidently not thinking it through.

Your Bible god is not worthy of worship he is not even worthy of being a crap stain in my underwear.

Jason said, Unnecessary and disrespectful. A little more maturity would be appreciated.

I'm sorry, you have me confused with a person who may have respect for your silly superstitions and delusions of authority. Again, your Bible-god isn't even worthy of being a semen stain in my underwear. And you know what god did to people who spilled their semen? What an asshole.

How can anyone worship an all-loving, creator, God, who would cause the suffering and deaths of innocent children?

Jason said, Problem solved if the children all grow up to be as wicked as their parents. The point is, God doesn't owe His creation anything. He's fair and just, asking only that people do what He says. If they don't, they pay the consequences. It's a simple equation.

The point is, if a Deity causes the suffering of an innocent child before it supposedly, becomes wicked, then god is just a torturer, who tortures little children. Additionally, if god knew they were going to grow up to be wicked then why create them in the first place -- for his amusement, so he could torture them? Point is if god causes his creation to suffer he is not all-loving; he is a demented fuck.

How is it "just" for a baby to live in misery because it has third and fourth degree burns over it's body? How is it "just" that a little six year old girl is being repeatedly, anally, raped by a perverted uncle, while she screams in her head, please god help me? How is it "just" that a tornado ripped through a town causing, suffering, death and destruction -- causing a child to be mentally retarded and suffer for the rest of it's life, on machines? How is it "just" that a baby is born with it's heart on the outside of it's body, to suffer for three months, only to die? All the while god does nothing.

How could anyone worship a supposed, all-loving god who let's millions of children, suffer -- all individuals, with their own hopes and dreams and loves, whose lives have been cut short, leaving misery, devastation and despair in their wake. Innocent children have suffered and died from heinous diseases, starvation, unclean water, natural destruction, war, genocide, horrendous, sadistic and unimaginable ways.

In Jason's lame explanation, he said, The vast majority of these are the fault of man, not God.

Yet god stands by and does nothing. Don't give me your free will argument because it doesn't hold water. Presumably, in heaven we are not robots and we have free will, but suffering doesn't exist in heaven, because it's heaven -- right?
Man doesn't cause genetic diseases, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, diseases passed by ticks and mosquitoes, droughts, sunstroke, death by umbilical cord, and hurricanes. This is what your dumb-ass god created. Intelligent design? Far from it. If a person created the umbilical cord and the design was flawed, too long, causing it to wrap around a babies necks in utero, depleting precious oxygen, causing the baby to be born with defects, mental and physical -- to suffer the rest of their lives or causes death -- the person who invented it, would be brought up on charges, life in prison, or executed. But yet, you defend this inept god, who can't even get the umbilical cord right.

Why would I put any amount of faith in a God who would let this happen?

Jason, wearing his rose colored biblical glasses said, Because you also know God is patient and longsuffering and blesses those who follow His commandments.

I know nothing of god. You only have a deluded finite human construct of god based in scripture, that has absolutely no validity.

How can I possibly worship and have faith in a God that lets cruel, inhuman, unimaginable, mass suffering, happen?

Jason said, Man has personal responsibility. Your issue is with wicked human beings, not God.

That is a crap pat answer. My issue is with god who created this miserable excuse of a creation, with all it's flaws. There is more then just wicked human beings involved and you know it. Not to mention he punishes, causes to suffer and kills all throughout the Bible, as we know was accompanied by the greatest of success. He continued to cause suffering and he killed, but they never listened. They always went back to their wicked ways. Why couldn't the almighty control his people? Why did god even try, when he knew they weren't going to listen anyways?
This isn't a god of omniscience; it is a god of stupidity and cruelty.

...And anyone (Jason) defending this crazy, brutal, violently destructive, sadomasochist should be thoroughly evaluated and held in the same contempt.

Jason said, Argumentum ad populum.

This was not a false argument that appeals to the masses or majority or any sense of the definition -- you really shouldn't play with big words, if you don't know what they mean.
In actually, this is an argument, that you are a delusional, christian zealot -- with zero authority or validity -- who has to defend your warped biblical view and your equally warped and demented god, at all costs, to protect your flimsy, fairytale illusion, from magically turning into fairy dust, before your very eyes. You've got nothing.

--S,

Brian said...

@sconnor: Even as a Christian, I actually think you're right that the 'free will defense' can't deal adequately with the senseless suffering of children that occurs for all kinds of 'natural' reasons; and I think you're right that such suffering constitutes one of the most profound challenges to Christian faith--and for that matter, to any real trust and confidence in the goodness of life, no matter its religious or philosophical context. I doubt you're really interested in talking through the more sophisticated and humane theological responses the Christian tradition has tried to provide over the centuries, but I would beg you to remember this: for the Old and New Testaments alike, it's not only the human race but all of creation that's in bondage in death. The biblical hope is that children will one day play over adders' nests, without fear of death--because then God will be all in all, and creation, no longer estranged from the love that gave it birth, will attain its final harmony. The death of children is due to the reign of death itself, which God hates and promises to destroy. Maybe that's too pretty and unbelievable a hope for you, and maybe it's proven wrong by the fact that God hasn't done it yet; I won't blame you if it is. But that is the Christian hope, as I understand it, and one we find the strength to believe because we know that Jesus of Nazareth died and yet was risen in triumph.

Jason said...

Sconnor,

You’re obviously not interested in genuinely discussing the topic in a mature and intelligent manner. Like many other atheists, your powers of persuasion are limited only to criticizing and mocking. This behaviour is not only crippling to a proper exchange, it is fundamentally discourteous, and shows no respect whatsoever either for the subject, or those involved with the discussion of it.

All the best.

McGuire said...

Jason, you should be happy that it's atheists you're arguing with, because we don't presume that that entitles us to the right to kill those that argue with us... out of love of course. Unlike, say, God.

sconnor said...

Brian,
If both my legs were blown off in a war and I was left with stumps, the rest of my life, I could have the hope that they would magically regenerate, right before my eyes -- but that would be an unrealistic hope.

You said, The biblical hope is that children will one day play over adders' nests, without fear of death--because then God will be all in all, and creation, no longer estranged from the love that gave it birth, will attain its final harmony.

This is the same kind of unrealistic hope, that is in my amputee analogy. An illusion -- wishful thinking.

You said, The death of children is due to the reign of death itself,...

Yeah, death is death. We are fragile, biological, creatures susceptible to disease, injury and death -- nothing profound here.

You continued, ...which God hates and promises to destroy.

If god hates it and wants to destroy it, then god should get what he wants, being god and all.
But yet, he can't or he won't.

You said, I doubt you're really interested in talking through the more sophisticated and humane theological responses the Christian tradition has tried to provide over the centuries,...

The last year and a half I have been studying and researching (more of an obsession, really) god and the problem of suffering. I've heard it all. Absolutely nothing resonates with me.
But be my guest, give me your best shot. Give me the one sophisticated, zinger, that will lay my worries to rest.

You said, But that is the Christian hope, as I understand it, and one we find the strength to believe because we know that Jesus of Nazareth died and yet was risen in triumph.

Hope, based on faith in christian doctrine and the bible is no hope at all, for it was only men -- in the guise of god's supposed voice, lending undeserved validity and authority -- to wishful, magical thinking, to give us comfort, in the finality of death.

--S.

sconnor said...

Jason,
even if I was the most belligerent, disrespectful, prick on the face of the earth, you shouldn't hesitate, by putting me in my place, with your supposed incontrovertible, iron-clad arguments. There's nothing like grabbing a prick by the balls and slamming him with indisputable, evidence, but you got nothing.

Come back, if you ever want to be spanked again.

--S.

Here it is again for your reading enjoyment:

Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Really try hard and absorb this quote.

sitbaddoggy said...

God seems all the less Omnipotent and all the more Incompetent, if he has to actually wait to stop "death's reign".

gritpipe said...

I'm really surprised that nobody here mentioned the story of Esther. Thousands dead.

seo expert said...

very nice post



web design India

destructo_man said...

@wordzguy
According to texts suspected to be candidates for the original New Testiment, young Jesus killed a few children. Until Joseph told him that that wasn't a good use of his powers. Unfortunately, it's only apocryphal =/

And I'm atheist, but I'm not out to break anybody's faith haha

j said...

the bears mauling the children is my favorite Bible verse, pure comedy.

Josh4 said...

"Some people say that God ain't real 'cause they don't see how a good God can exsist with all this evil in the world. If God is real then He should stop all this evil, 'cause He's all-powerful right? What is evil though man? It's anything that's against God. It's anything morally bad or wrong. It's murder, rape, stealing, lying, cheating. But if we want God to stop evil, do we want Him to stop it all or just a little bit of it? If He stops us from doing evil things, what about lying, or what about our evil thoughts? I mean, where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, or the thinking level? If we want Him to stop evil, we gotta be consistent, we can't just pick and choose. That means you and I would be eliminated right? Because we think evil stuff. If that's true, we should be eliminated! But thanks be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin! Christ died for all evilness! Repent, turn to Jesus man!"

Lecrae "Truth" from the Album Rebel

www.kusadasi.tv said...

Should I thank who - ''god" --
If these lies were not fed to our ancestors - there would have been no Christianity and the Christians would not have killed Millions and Millions of people in the name of religion and till this day this slaughter is going on.
The stories which are taught to us as facts in the so called Holy books - a kid will laugh at it and he/she can make up better and more believable stories. http://www.acaiberryforsale.org/

paleo said...

Josh4, your argument that God has to stop all evil or none at all, has no basis. it's like saying as a parent, you have to let your children do anything they please, or let them do nothing. Good parents give children certain freedoms, but don't let them run with knives, play in a busy street, or do other things that greatly risk their own or other's health and safety..So God could easily pervent say, murders, rapes, and child molestation. and still give us plenty of free will. The world would be a far better place, would it not? And as others pointed out, the concept pf heaven refutes the free will argument. Unless you're suggesting there is no free will in heaven, God can allow free will without allowing pain and suffering. I'm not saying I think heaven exists, just that it refutes the free will argument.