A Nonprophet Site

2 Chronicles 7:13-14

2012-01-10T01:23:00.000-05:00

I haven't blogged anything for a while,but my friend from some of my previous posts has put up anothervideo, which has prompted this post. His video can be found here.

In his video, he attempts to explainwhy Christians should pray and he uses 2 Chronicles 7:13-14 to backup his explanation. I'm taking the following quote from the JewishStudy Bible since Chronicles is from the Old Testament, but it'sbasically the same:

God to Solomon: “If I shut up theheavens and there is no rain; if I command the locusts to ravage theland; or if I let loose pestilence against my people, when my people,who bear my name, humble themselves, pray, and seek my favor and turnfrom their evil ways, I will hear in my heavenly abode and forgivetheir sins and heal their land.”

In the comments section of his video, Iresponded as follows:

"I have to say that I still don'tagree with you. I don't understand how you can wish to worship a godwho sends (by his own admission in the verses you read) torment topeople and then expects worship in order to have the torment removed.If a man is torturing you and said I'll stop if you love me, wouldyou really love him? No, you wouldn't because what he is doing isevil. Why is your god any different?"

Hisresponse:

“Godis in control of everythingPhyllis. He created theUniverse and set all the laws that hold everything together. God isnot a kid with a magnifying glass who tortures people unless theyworship Him, which iswhat you are making Him out to be. God allows these things tohappen but that does not mean that He is evil. God allows rainto fall on everyone,including those who think they are good and those who people considerevil. You could then argue that God causes the earthquakes, thecyclones, the floods because He is cruel and wants to destroy peopleunless they turn to Him. That's simply not the case. The laws ofnature that He has set in place, plays out and leads to theseevents. He is not thepuppet master that controls everyone and everything. It's easy totake such verses and then make God seem sopetty. There are manyverse in the Bible, if taken in isolation, that would make God seemso evil. Sorry, but that'snot how it works. Those who don't want to believe in God or worshipHim or obey Him, will always find ways to support that decision orattitude. You have made your decision to not believe Him and I sadlycannot convince you otherwise. All I can do ispray for you and others inthe same situation.”

Iam further responding here:

Itis not that I don't want to believe in a god. I have absolutely noproof of a god existing and that is why I don't believe. If therewere proof of the god of the Bible, I could not worship him or obeyhim as that god is evil and/or incompetent. This is a god whosupposedly created everything in the world, and he created it allimperfectly. We have a planet on which the land masses move aroundand bang into each other causing earthquakes and tsunamis. There isa molten core from which hot molten lava finds its way to the surfacecreating volcanoes. There are unstable weather patterns that causedrought, fire, ice storms, tornadoes, floods, mudslides, avalanches. This is a universe in which asteroids bang into planets. ThisYouTuber said it himself – God set the laws of nature in place. Ifthis is the case, then why is God not responsible for what happens? He set it up; therefore, he is responsible.

Asfor living beings, he made defective products – bacteria, plants,and animals (including humans). Living entities break down whetherby age, accident, or illness. Living beings require food of sometype for survival. Why build in that stipulation? That means that,with the exception of most plants, every living entity is a predatorand all living entities are prey at the same time.

Specificto humans, we supposedly choose to sin against god because he gave usfree will. This is, again, incompetence on god's part, or he set usup to sin, which would make him evil because he then chooses topunish us for sinning. God could have made humans incapable ofbadness while still providing free will. After all, free will simplymeans being capable of choosing a course of action from among variousalternatives, none of which have to be sinful. We would have thefreedom to opt for all kinds of things, just none of them would be“sinful.” Sin need not have been created at all. That was god'schoice and he chose to have it. How else can you possibly explainthe creation of sin in this world if you are a Bible believer? Toexplain it any other way requires you to ignore logic. Sin could nothave come from satan because, again, god created satan and had tohave given him free will as well, so the same explanation applies tosatan and free will. Had god not chosen to bring sin into hiscreation, there would be no such thing.

Contraryto what this YouTuber claims in his comments to me, it is not thenonbeliever who picks out Bible verses to support their way ofthinking. It is the believer who picks out the nice verses and/orrefuses to see what is really stated in that book of theirs abouttheir god in order to support their way of thinking. The god of theBible is not a good god. He is either evil, incompetent, or both.

Youdon't get to claim that god created everything in the universe andthen say he is not responsible for everything that occurs. He's notjust responsible for the good; he is also responsible for the bad. You don't get to claim that a god that admits to stopping the rain,or ruining the food, or sending illnesses, all of which end up inhorrendous deaths, is not an evil god, particularly when those thingswere sent as punishment for sins which he had to have created in thefirst place. That is an evil god and, as I said, I don't understandhow you can choose to worship a god like that.

Ifthis god does exist, by worshiping him you are condoning his tortureof others. You are essentially saying that it is okay for him totorment people to death because those people have the option toworship him also and perhaps then he'll stop torturing them. Look atwhat god is saying in 2 Chronicles 7:13-14. Don't look at what youwant to see. Look at what he is really saying: If he punishespeople for sin by causing drought, ruination of the food supply, or helets illness ravage the people, all of which we know can causehorrendous death, he will stop further torture if the people pray tohim. I ask you – how is that any different than a jailer torturinga prisoner? A prisoner is already serving his sentence for hiscrime. Torture, therefore, is not necessary and is an evil done bythe jailer. God's supposed jail sentence for sinners is eternalhell. By sending further torment while on earth, he is no betterthan the evil jailer. What makes this god even worse than the jailer is that the jailer didn't create the crime, but god did. I don't understand how anyone can worship an entity like that.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, butnot able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but notwilling?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able andwilling?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able norwilling?
Then why call him God?” -- Epicurus

God-Loving Conservatives and Their So-Called Search for the Truth.

2011-09-18T20:14:00.000-04:00

The other day I came across a YouTube video made by yet another God-loving conservative and hissmall-minded analysis that homosexuality is a choice. He ranted onabout that fact that he provides evidence for his statements and thatthose who disagree with him never provide evidence to back up theirdisagreements. He then showed the website from which he was reading– NARTH. Yeah, that's real evidence – NOT.

For those who don't know (if anyone isreading this), NARTH is the National Association for Research &Therapy of Homosexuality, which was founded in 1992 in response tothe American Psychiatric Association's removal of homosexuality fromits list of mental disorders in 1973, an action that the founders ofNARTH opposed vehemently. NARTH relies on outdated studies in theirpush for reparative therapy of gays. NARTH regularly participates inevents organized by such religious organizations as Focus on theFamily.

This particular YouTuber read thefollowing outdated (1996) quote from the NARTH website:

“It’s importantto stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality isgenetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show thatgay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make ininterpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." -- Simon LeVay, Ph.D., Neuroanatomy).

As I have discoveredthat many Christians love to cherry-pick their quotes, I tend tosearch for more information before I accept or reject theirstatements. I discovered Simon LeVay's website in which he statedthe following about the above-cited quote:

“This is anaccurate quote, but it relates to what I showed (or didn’t show) onthe basis of that one study. If one looks at the totality of researchnow available, including my study, the evidence points strongly tothe idea that genes and non-genetic biological factors stronglyinfluence a person’s sexual orientation, as discussed in the reviewarticle on my website.”

In response to this YouTuber's video, Itried to post this quote in the comments section of his video only tobe met with the usual Christian fear-of-the-truth action of “CommentPending Approval.” It's now been three or four days and my commenthas not shown up, yet the YouTuber has logged onto his channelnumerous times since I tried to post it. It would appear that thereason people don't provide evidence against his assertions isbecause he doesn't allow it. Actions like his are so incrediblydishonest.

God is Perfect?

2011-09-12T01:12:00.002-04:00

Christians like to claim that their god is perfect and man is imperfect. The problem is that a perfect being cannot, by definition, create something that is imperfect. If imperfection is created by someone/something, then the creator of it cannot be perfect. Perfection can only create perfection, else the creator is not perfect. Christians might then state that their god made man perfect, but gave us freewill, which caused the imperfection. However, there is a problem with that as well. Perfection, even with freewill, will always make the right choice, otherwise it is not perfect.

Example A:

Person A (with freewill) has the choice between B (good/perfect option) or C (bad/imperfect option).

If person A is imperfect, there is a 50/50 chance of him choosing B or C.

If person A is perfect, he will always choose B (good/perfect option) or else he is imperfect because he made a mistake. Perfection cannot make mistakes.

Example B (just for clarification):

Let's suppose you are perfect and you have freewill. You go about your life meeting various scenarios in which you have the choice of making the right move or the wrong move. Given that you are perfect, you will always choose the right thing to do. If you were to choose the wrong move, then you could not be perfect because choosing the wrong thing to do would be a mistake, and perfection cannot make mistakes.

Hence, god could not have created Adam and Eve to be perfect, with freewill, because regardless of the choices offered them by the talking serpent, they would have chosen to listen to god and not eaten from that tree. Because they made the wrong choice (mistake), they could not have been created to be perfect. Since the claim is that god created them, and they are imperfect, god cannot be perfect either. Something perfect cannot create something imperfect. It is just not possible.

A perfect god who wants everyone to come to him would have made it abundantly clear what his rules are and exactly how he is to be worshipped. Instead, he supposedly inspired the writing of a book in one small corner of the world where it cannot be guaranteed that everyone in the world would ever hear of the book, much less ever agree on it if they do hear about it. If this god wanted everyone to come to him, as is claimed, then this book would have been written in a way that everyone could only interpret its meaning one way, and one way only. It seems to me that no two Christians agree completely on one version of Christianity. All you have to do is watch videos from different Christians on YouTube. Most don't agree with each other, plus the fact that there are over 33,000 differing denominations of Christianity.

The facts are that there are over 33,000 Christian denominations and no one knows the number of other religions in the world, which brings me back to my argument in my previous blog post that the Bible is irrelevant in today's societies. We have secular laws now that we must follow or face the consequences. We must follow secular laws rather than one supposed holy book because there are approximately 7.1 billion people on this planet right now. Of those people, only 32-33% are Christians. The other 67-68% are either of another religion or of no religion. It is not reasonable to have all people follow the rules of a book to which they do not subscribe. Legislation must govern all people equally, not unfairly by the use of one set of rules from one religion.

Are we really expected to believe that this loving god is sending all the other Christians who don't agree with one version of Christianity plus another 67-68% of the population of this earth to hell because they don't accept that one version of Christianity? This loving god who couldn't be bothered to create a book of rules and instructions so that everyone on the planet could know about it and understand it, with no possible way of misinterpreting what he meant?

Any god worth worshiping should not need his followers to make excuses for said god's shortcomings, which is essentially what most Christians do. He should be able to stand up to the scrutiny of facts and logic, not run away from them.

The Bible in 21st Century Democracies

2011-08-23T00:58:00.003-04:00

Before starting this initial blog post, I would like to stress that I have no problem with people believing in whatever form of god, religion, or doctrine they see fit for themselves. I do, however, bristle when those same people wish to force their beliefs onto others to live by. Believers, keep thy beliefs to thineselves. Contrary to popular belief, democratic countries are not ruled by ancient books meant for the people of ancient times. This is the 21^st Century and societies have evolved as knowledge of the world is obtained. Your books are outdated and irrelevant. I would also like to make it clear that, even though I may argue using verses from the Bible, I consider the book to be irrelevant in today's democratic societies. However, sometimes one must use the sources of the opposite side to try to get them to see the errors with said sources.

I have had a short discussion with a pleasant fellow on YouTube regarding his video entitled “Same Sex Marriage.” You can see the video and the our discussion here. The premise of his video is that homosexuality is detestable to his god and that marriage is between a man and a woman as the natural order of things in order to create new life. As same-sex unions cannot naturally create life, even though there is in vitro fertilization, that is not how human beings come into this world. I believe this YouTuber's aim is to try to get “the lost,” as he calls us, to see the error of our ways and accept Jesus and repent.

We had a very short discussion on YouTube and then he make a much longer response as a post on his blog, which can be found here. I decided the best way to respond to him is to begin my own blog. So, here we go.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:

Firstly, I have been accused of taking biblical verses out of context. However, it is not I who has done so. I have looked at the entire context of when the Bible was written, who it was written for, and who may have written the various verses and why. There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible. Of these, around 10 have been twisted to condemn homosexuality. I'm going to take these one at a time:

Genesis 19:5: “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

This verse is from the infamous story of Sodom and Gomorrah. This particular story has been completely distorted to make the sin of the people of these cities homosexuality; however, the sin was being inhospitable to strangers. The sin was that the people of these cities treated strangers violently. During those times, forcible anal sex was used as a way to shame and degrade other men. See the explanation below for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. God destroyed these cities because of their lack of hospitality to strangers along with idolatry. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28 in which it is explained that God destroyed the cities because their people worshiped other gods. See Ezekiel 16:49-50 in which it states that the sin of Sodom was that the people were arrogant, haughty, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

What I find the most interesting is that people who point to Sodom and Gomorrah as the sin of homosexuality never say anything about the fact that the “righteous” Lot offered up his two virgin daughters to the angry mob of men. To me, that is far more sinful than what consenting adults do.

Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” and

Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

The following explanation of these verses is taken word for word from a Jewish Study Bible: “Biblical and ancient Near Eastern culture was not familiar with homosexuality in the sense of a defined sexual orientation or lifestyle (according to Biblical evidence David and Jonathan had no sexual relationship). It acknowledges only the occasional act of male anal intercourse, usually as an act of force associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection (for the biblical examples see Gen 19:4-5, Judg. 19-22).” Again, this refers to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah being about their citizens being inhospitable and violent.

Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

In Romans 1, reading these verses in context, Paul is talking about Christians who have left the church and converted to Paganism. Because of this, God punished them (gave them up) to what was unnatural for them. Therefore, he is talking about heterosexuals punished by God forcing them to engage in homosexual acts. God was not punishing them for being homosexual, but rather for leaving the faith and becoming idol worshipers. Paul was not writing about same-sex orientation.

I Corinthians 6:9 : “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”

This verse revolves around two Greek words “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai.” “Malakoi” is translated in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as “soft” or “fine” in references to clothing. It could also mean “loose” or “pliable.” Our culture today has many connotations associated with the word “effeminate” that simply do not apply to Paul's time. As for “arsenokoitai,” this word seemed to apply to shrine prostitution based on other writers of the time. 1 Timothy 1:8-10 also uses the word “arsenokoitai” which has been mistranslated in the same fashion.

Now, about the “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” argument. My YouTube friend did not make this argument, but I'm just trying to cover as many bases as possible here. Genesis is an explanation of origins, not an essay on marriage. The fact that Adam and Eve were a twosome was not used to forbid polygamy, which is rampant in the Bible. Therefore, why should the same story be used to forbid same-sex couples?

Looking at all of the above “in context” of the times, the Bible, in no way, condemns homosexuality.

JESUS VS PAUL (a small sampling of differences):

During my discussion with this YouTuber, I mentioned that Paul's teachings were not the same as what Jesus taught. I was asked for specific verses to prove this.

The YouTuber himself quoted Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” However, he did not quote the next verses, which are also very important: Matthew 5:18-19 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus clearly stated that the law was to be followed word for word until heaven and earth pass away, and neither passed away upon Christ's death.

However. . .

Paul taught in Romans 3:28 (man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law), Romans 7:4 (dead to the law through the body of Christ), Galatians 3 (the law was the tutor to bring people to Christ that they might be justified by faith and, when faith came, the tutor was no longer required). These are but three examples of Paul contradicting what Jesus said about the law. There are more, however.

In Luke 10:25-37, Jesus was asked how a person inherits eternal life. Jesus responded by asking “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” The man responded by stating that you must love God, as well as love your neighbor as yourself, and then asked for a definition of “neighbor.” Jesus responded by telling the story of the Good Samaritan, who provided a stranger with much needed assistance when others of a religious persuasion did not. Jesus said to do as the Samaritan. This clearly shows that Jesus taught law plus works.

However. . .

Paul taught in Romans 10:9 (confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and you will be saved); Galatians 2:16 (A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, because by observing the law no one will be justified). These are but two verses; again, there are plenty more.

THOUGHTS:

If Jesus came to release people from the law, why did he spend time teaching it? Why didn't he just say that the law would no longer apply once he had died? It makes no sense if you think about it.

Why did Jesus not appoint Paul as an apostle when he appointed the rest of them? Jesus had twelve disciples to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul would have made thirteen as Judas was replaced by Matthias. We really only have Paul's word that he was chosen by Jesus, and we can see from the differences in Paul's teachings compared to that of Jesus' that it really is only Paul's word. . .and nothing more than Paul's word.

SUMMARY:

Although I was the one accused of taking Biblical verses out of context, I think I have proven that I am not the guilty party. One must take so much into consideration when trying to fit an ancient book of writings into a period of time in which these writings are outdated and not applicable. One must look at the structure of societies at the time – how they lived, what they understood at the time, their language(s), etc. One must look at the history of the Bible, how it came to be written, who wrote what and when, is it internally consistent, how has it been translated (or in this case, mistranslated) etc. Then one must ask themselves if they have read the Bible critically, i.e. What does it really say versus what does one wish it to say and/or what someone else has claimed it says.

The fact is that the Bible does not talk about homosexual or same-sex marriage because they were not issues of the times in which it was written. A few verses have been mistranslated and twisted in order for the majority to discriminate against a minority. This has got to stop.

The fact is that most Christians do not follow the words of Christ, but follow a man who could only claim to be an apostle and whose teachings were not those of Christ.

The fact is that, as stated at the beginning of this very long post, the Bible is irrelevant to democratic societies. Democracies follow constitutions and laws, not ancient manuscripts that should have been left with the societies in which they were created.