the genocidal god

of the old testament, if you will.

In his post, Brian Ingalls, has set out to convince us atheists are wrong in thinking his beloved god is guilty of genocide among other crimes.

He gives the following excuses

  1. any God who can create such a vast and complex reality as this universe, certainly may also behave in ways that human beings might occasionally struggle to comprehend.
  2. it is all hyperbole in the part of the bible authors
  3. the claims that wholesale slaughter of people took place in Canaan is incorrect. These were just night raids, over a long period
  4. god had warned the people of Canaan for centuries and their response was fuck off
  5. god is just, live with it
  6. it’s god’s way of fucking us
  7. the people of Israel were just following orders

Is there anyone of you with some sense in their heads who doesn’t think these excuses are absurd, inexcusable and are blasphemous?

a. our concepts of justice, and these are the only meaningful ways of which we can talk about justice expects us to protect those we have created and are vulnerable. It is not an argument in god’s favour that having created sentient beings, he can do with them as he pleases.

b. if the apologist wants to use this line of hyperbole, we must ask why a good god would want to deceive its followers.

c. who was the god of the Canaanites? Why would the same god who made them, command another group of people it made to forcefully occupy their land? Was it impossible for a god so powerful to settle them elsewhere without bloodshed?

d. why, even after issuing warnings would god command bloodshed. I can think of many non violent ways a good meet its ends and to tell us an all loving, powerful and knowing god would only think of bloodshed reeks of a lack of imagination

e. the claim that whatever god does is just is abhorrent to any thinking being.

f. why would an apologist argue with a straight face that the only means available to their god is bloodshed?

g. why have the blood on their hands? Why make the people of Israel be inhumane towards others who have done them no harm? What justice is there? Where is the kindness? Where is the love?

I think any theist who justifies these repine in the name of god is worse than a monster. To believe it’s a show of love, kindness and great knowledge to fill the earth with the blood of innocents is to me the worst form of psychopathy and such persons ought to be checked into an institution.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

43 thoughts on “the genocidal god

  1. those excuses are all of that and don’t forget contradictory. theists are always good creating contradictions in their desperation to claim their vicious imaginary god is somehow all-good.

    your title appears to be misspelled.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. ladysighs says:

    “Is there anyone of you with some sense in their heads who doesnโ€™t think these excuses are absurd, inexcusable and are blasphemous?”

    Probably anybody with any sense in their heads wouldn’t be reading his blog. LOL. (No reflection on anybody I know!!!!!!!! )
    I did go and look and backed right out. ๐Ÿ™‚
    Thanks for doing the dirty work for us. ๐Ÿ™‚


  3. john zande says:

    Always amusing to see that a god of maximum power and unmovable truth requires excuses.


  4. KIA says:

    The genocidal god and the actual history of ‘israel’ are great convincers That such a god and such a history of Israel, the exodus and the conquest of caanan As described in the bible is no more actual history than the world wide flood or a 6 day/6000yr creation (talking snakes and donkeys with dead people coming back to life not withstanding).
    The sheer volume of people to Apologize and try to excuse the Abrahamic God of the bible from the atrocities and mass murdering tendencies is Legion, and serves the same purpose as its name sake in the NT… binding and keeping otherwise intelligent and good people in a system that drives them further and further into delusion and out into the tombs.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. tildeb says:

    To believe itโ€™s a show of love, kindness and great knowledge to fill the earth with the blood of innocents is to me the worst form of psychopathy and such persons ought to be checked into an institution.

    Argh! The insensitivity! The intolerance! The victimization!

    Mak, you gave no trigger warning to those who may suffer from some form of inherent dysfunctional psychopathy! How can anyone ever feel safe unless you ban yourself?

    Where’s my teddy bear? I’m melting.


  6. Another fine post pointing out the cruelty of Yahweh. What a bastard.


  7. exrelayman says:

    What good has He done? Silly boy. Jebus went around helling people – oops, my bad – healing. I know this is troo because my pastor and tons of other people think so too. So there ๐Ÿ™‚


  8. fojap says:

    It’s pretty obvious at this point that the Bible stories are far from being history. If you can get as far as saying that the Bible account of the destruction of Canaan is “hyperbole” or that they were just “night raids” (I’m not even sure why that makes it okay.) then you’ve already admitted that it’s not particularly reliable as history, so where do you stop. Maybe Canaan never existed at all. Maybe David didn’t exist. No Moses. No Exodus. No enslavement in Egypt.

    I’m looking for a video I saw some time ago. I’ll be back if I can find it.

    By the way, did you notice the title of that book I gave you link for, the seventeenth century account of North American colonization? “The New English Canaan.”


    • makagutu says:

      I started reading it but stopped to finish some other book first. Curious title.
      The apologist does not realize how he destroys his own arguments by making such claims about the bible


      • fojap says:

        Well, they hadn’t coined the term genocide yet, but that was the idea. It’s a somewhat eccentric book by an eccentric person. The latter part of the book is about the conflicts Morton had with the Puritans.

        He had been part owner in a “plantation” venture and arrived with two other big wigs and a large group of indentured servants. The other two did something that insulted and threatened the natives and they wouldn’t trade with them. At that time, trade was the main point of a plantation and a nice profit could be made off trading fishhooks, metal pots and similar things for beaver and other types of skins, but mainly beaver. So, the business venture looked really bad after only a few months. The two other partners who were in North America (some backers were in England) took most of the servants to sell them in Virginia. Morton held a big feast and told remaining people that he would free them if they would join him. As part owner, he said he could do that. So the made their own little settlement a few miles away from the Puritans at Plymouth.

        The established good relations with the natives and traded very successfully. Morton makes fun of the starving Pilgrims (admittedly not nice) because he says that they were starving in a land of plenty. Because they had made enemies of all their neighbors, meaning the native tribes, they had to barricade themselves into their settlement behind a palisade. Meanwhile, the woods were teeming with game and the water with fish. The very same winter that so many Puritans starved, Morton and his men were only a few miles away leading the good life, eating well and making money on trade.

        The Puritans accused Morton of selling guns and molds to make bullets to the Indians, which was illegal. Morton denies this. The Puritans arrest him and strand him alone on an island while waiting to be sent to England for trial. Morton says that they wanted to kill him and that he only survived because Indians came and fed him.

        He’s sent to England and is acquitted. He returns to North America and the same thing happens again. He returns again.

        That’s more or less the end of the story. Morton was also accused of atheism, but he denied that as well insisting he was just a normal Church of England guy. He’s also been accused of being a Catholic. He writes about the importance of getting along with one’s neighbors he seems to be more generally opposed to religious intolerance, whether directed at Catholics or Heathens.

        In my mid-thirties, I wrote a screenplay based on this story.


  9. fojap says:

    I came across this video more or less by accident a few months ago. I thought it was interesting. I’d be curious to know what other people think. After you get past the inevitable platitudes about monotheism, the video is mostly about archaeology.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. shelldigger says:

    1. The old “it’s ok cuz we can’t comprehend the mind of god trick!” Egads that gets old quick. What kind of LSD do these people take so they can believe it’s all good? Trippy shit man.

    2. Then hyperbole? Yeah, people are just looking for reasons to exaggerate and add complexity to such a simple issue. We are making more of it than need be. Yessir. That must be it.

    3. Oh, it wasn’t wholesale slaughter all at once, it was dragged out over a long period of time. I can see haw that makes it better. /eyeroll.

    4. They were warned! Warned I tell ya. It was all their fault!

    5. Wow, deep shit man. What are they taking again?

    6. This one they may have got right.

    7. So were many Nazis. How does that make it better exactly? Inquiring minds and all of that.

    Anything to whitewash away the quite obviously disgusting fucking dog they worship. This is a sickness folks. Fucking brain rot.


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s