on god and David’s son

This post by Ufuomaee is a followup to a post by KIA where he dealt with the death of the child of Bathsheba and David.

She tells us, with bold font added by us for emphasis, that

This was like some sort of a revelation, at the time I shared it.  I was thinking, at the time, how the value we place on our lives here and now is often what hinders us from believing in God and eternity.  And I think this is the fundamental flaw of Mike’s analysis.

which, dear friends, is not why we are atheists. It is the failure by the god believers to provide evidence for their god that we are atheists. The same goes for eternity. We have no evidence to believe in eternity. And besides, if she didn’t value this life why would she want eternity, especially if, to her, eternity is a continuation of this life in the presence of her loved deity?

I think it was Nietzsche who said Christianity is a death cult. Our friend writes,

But in Christianity, we called to DIE before we can live…

And I think most of them remain dead. They never live.

She then tells us

I think the reason I have never cried, and will never cry for this child (which Mike believes is fictional), is because I believe that he is already in a better place ().  This life, here on Earth, is over-rated!

And I am wondering why Christians like her aren’t praying to god to call them to his dwelling place. All of the Christians I know love this life and don’t want to die. They take medication when they are sick, eat well and so much more. To say you wont weep for the child because he is in a better place, a place you have no way of knowing it exists, is to me heartless.

Atheists, she says

 But here it is, the thing Atheists can’t seem to get their heads around – God is the only one JUST to take away what He is the only one able to give.

Divine Command Theory anyone?

If she were arguing as David Benatar does in his book Better not to have been, then this

Whether or not he would have lived a life worth living, or if he would have been a tyrant of a king, we really don’t know.

would have had some weight. Or if she were like Spencer, who when his newly born babe died, argued the bible was very wise to not have wanted to live long. Reminds me of what Nietzsche writes, it is better not to be born but once born to die sooner. For a person who believes in an omnipotent god, what a person becomes should not be a problem. Unless she is willing to limit the extent of omnipotence, she can’t have her cake and eat it.

Her next consideration also paints a picture of a god without options and incapable of seeing his works to fruition. If, as the book says, they were god’s chosen people, one shouldn’t even consider the possibility of a powerful god failing to provide them with a leader. Most of the time believers point to Joseph as an example of god working with anyone he so chooses. There should have been no vacuum of leadership were god to do the right thing. Besides it would have been a good lesson to the people of Israel that it is not proper to get a person killed to have either his wife or husband as the case may be.

Why did god command several wars of annihilation for entire tribes?

I know why God did it (the same reason you don’t cut off weeds, but pull them out, roots and all), but I really wish there had been another way prepared then.

Who was their god? Couldn’t Adonai forgive them without having to shed blood? Was it possible that even the day old babes in Sodom were guilty of some transgression?

While she says

One innocent child dying at the judgement of God, I can understand…

I, on the other hand, with Ivan in the Inquisitor cannot accept the death of a single child at the judgement of god. What god does that to a child?

It has not always been the case that

I think that even today, a king’s life is considered as valuable as that of all his subjects combined!  The reasoning goes that without his leadership to unite and guide them, they would all certainly fall into chaos, mischief and peril.

and this is supported by the many instances of ritual killing of the kings.

And while it is the case that

The truth is we all make judgement calls on the value of human life every day by the way we treat the living; whether near or far, friend or foe, sinner or saint, rich or poor, black or white etc.  Evidence shows that the value of human life is both immeasurable and inconsistently applied.

we have the excuse of being ignorant, driven by passions we hardly can control and greed. What excuse would a god have for treating humanity with favouritism, especially, being as it were, that he is claimed to be the creator?

Finally, she asks

It has also always baffled me how Atheists or Humanists would make an issue with God about His right to take life at will, and yet condone abortion for those who are inconvenienced by the life of another human being.  But that’s a whole other kettle of fish.

and I think this is to trivialize the issue.

To answer her final questions.

  • Has this post given you a new perspective on Christianity and the God of the Bible?

No, but it has done much more to convince me that some Christians are no different from their god.

  • What about the value we place on humanity?

Nothing new here. It is evident that we treat people differently, and for good reason.

  • Do you think that such accounts are proof that Jehovah is fictional or is there a different perspective on this you would like to share?

No, the accounts themselves do not tell us much about whether god[s] exist. Similarly, reading about wizards in any of Harry Potter books doesn’t bring us any close to solving the problem of wizards. All we can tell is that an author at a certain point in history imagined a god who abates assassinations and chooses as his representative the perpetrators of crimes. Nothing else. It is just a so so story and nothing more.

Of Christian sects and cults

Here I was strolling on the internet when I meet with this post and I got really interested.

While I laud her proposals, they don’t go far enough. It is not enough to just question ones faith but all god claims. Parents must as a matter of course not indoctrinate their children in their beliefs but to create an environment where children can know of different beliefs observed by others around them and to question the validity of any of them or all of them.

The type of group she discusses matches millennium cults that were prevalent in Europe between the 7th and 16th centuries of the current era. And while education was at play, the biggest drive was economic and they were based on loose interpretations of apocalyptic literature such as book of Revelations and Daniel. Instead of dismissing the followers as blind and uneducated, it is far more productive to us who don’t believe to investigate the motivations behind such groupings. Who says they are not political?

And while at it, she should be fair to her readers and start with a definition of a cult.

For me, the difference between a cult and a mainstream church is in real estate. Others I know have added a farther qualifier that in a cult the founder is still in many cases alive while in a religion the founder is long dead.

Finally I agree with her concluding remarks. She writes

However, it is imperative that we all use our brains for what they are meant for – to think! [Emphasis by me]

Is your pastor well educated

Did I hear you say that the clergy are well educated and therefore not in the same category with the fortune tellers and other quacks who claim to do business with the supernatural powers? Ah yes there is the rub. Your pastor has been to school true, but he has never been taught to think. He is a parrot. Forgive him. He can’t think for himself. His thinking has been warped because he has been indoctrinated with religious superstition. His education has been slanted. He has been told what to believe. It ha s been poured into him through a funnel. When he is graduated he is a beautiful bird who wears a colorful robe on Sundays and repeats the same lingo week after week. A moron could do just as well.

G. Vincent Runyon

What is the difference 

Between this and ancestor worship? 

I keep saying I find religious people a strange lot, especially when they are of African descent. They look down upon their traditional beliefs and then in the name of Christianity do and believe in absurdities for example that a man swallowed a fish whole and vomited the fish after 3 days 400 miles away, how ridiculous! 

just for laughs

Mark Twain wrote, in one of his many books, that

There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man’s notion that he is less savage than the other savages

and Trevor Noah has written

if you are a Native American and pray to the wolves, you are a savage, if you are African and you pray to your ancestors, you are primitive but if when white people pray to a guy who turns water into wine, well, that’s just common sense.

And that fellow, Veracious Poet, who I disagree with most of the time, did ask

am I the only one who thinks it’s funny that a Jew died for the love of Africans?