Tag Archives: Satan

God the Confused Creator: Part II

Hello again Brothers and Sisters.

Now that you have had a chance to pray and realize that part 1 of this lesson was true and accurate, I will continue.

You may have noticed in part 1 of this lesson, my use of plural pronouns when summarizing God’s creation of man in chapter 1.  This is simply due to God’s use of similar pronouns when dictating the story to Moses:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

As shown by the following passage from Genesis 3, this use of plural pronouns is not an anomaly:

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Your having missed this detail is quite understandable, considering that most people who claim to have read the Bible, haven’t actually done so, and many of those who have, did so through a lens distorted by prior beliefs.  Most people read their beliefs into the Bible instead of deriving their beliefs from a careful reading of the Bible, because of their having been taught what their beliefs were, before being able to read.  This is OK, but only if the beliefs you are reading into, or drawing from it agree 100% with what I say. To do otherwise is to show that Satan has clouded your mind and set you on a path to Hell.

Once you are reading things correctly, these passages clearly show the plurality of God. Some of you might say that this is a reference to Jesus, and I concur, others might say that it is an obvious reference to other gods, they are sinners. What most people don’t, or won’t, notice is that such a reference clearly points to the Jesus part of God as being female.  This is made most apparent when they make ‘man‘ in their image and likeness as ‘male and female.’ They are clearly talking about “man” as ‘mankind’ in this passage, because they refer to “the” man in chapter 3 as a way to differentiate between male and female.

735px-Venus_and_Adonis_-_TitianWhen you quit hyperventilating you might say something along the lines of ‘Jesus presents himself as the son of God, not the daughter or wife of God.’ Once again you would be right, but you are also denying God’s true power and wisdom. Obviously, the female half of God had to present herself as a man when she came to Earth. The male half of God had made his people extremely misogynistic, so they wouldn’t have paid attention if she had done otherwise.

Eve gets blamed for the fall of man when it was clearly ManGod’s fault for creating the serpent which led her to it; Lot’s daughters get blamed for their father getting them pregnant; it’s always blamed on the women when someone in the Bible can’t have kids instead of on E.D., low sperm count, or other such male problems; all of these things show the male bias which was ingrained into the society into which Jesus presented herself, so she had no choice but to appear male.

To say that the glorified, or heavenly, form of Jesus is not female is to deny God’s power and his word.  God is all-powerful, and the Bible is all right.  If God had the power to take human form and come to Earth, then surely she had the power to present herself as a man, just as the male half appeared as a man, as a burning bush, talked through a donkey, etc.  But, even in male form, the maternal nature of the female half is clearly shown in the healing and other forms of compassion and kindness she shows throughout the New Testament, which contrasts with the male half’s penchant for genocide, rape, incest, torture, killing, war, anger, jealousy, revenge, mutilation, infanticide, disease, a fascination with wombs and foreskin and other forms of sexual depravity and sadism displayed in the stories about him in the Old Testament.

460px-Dore_woodcut_Divine_Comedy_01We also see the whole punishment and reward thing change when the female half shows up.  In the Old Testament the primary protagonist is the jealous, angry, and spiteful male half of God, whose only reward system revolves around black and white concepts.  If you are good, you are rewarded with power and wealth.  If you are bad, you die.  And no matter what, when your life is over, you are put in the ground (hell) and that’s that.

441px-Dosso_Dossi_022When the more maternal side steps in, we get compassion, hope, love, charity, and other girly, touchy-feely views about God.  We also get a reward system based on such things, and a promise of another life in a newly inclusive Heaven.  Though she did have to make a concession and allow for a new type of Hell in which ManGod gets to take out his sadistic side on people he doesn’t like.

We also see women portrayed a little better in the New Testament than in the Old Testament they are mostly shown as covetous, lustful, greedy, whores who can’t have children unless God touches their wombs.

You might still be resisting the truth of God’s word so I give you this: Revelation 1:9-16

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Artist's Rendition of Jesus in her Glorified Form

Artist’s Rendition of Jesus in her Glorified Form:  The girdle is obviously the wrong color though

This is, of course, John’s vision of the glorified form of Jesus.  When John uses pronouns, he is clearly using male ones, but remember John, to this point, only knew the Jesus form presented on Earth, so it would be natural for him to make this assumption. The important word in this whole description is “paps.”

The word paps is only used three other times in the correctly translated, inerrant, King James Version of the Bible:  Ezekiel 23:21, Luke 11:27, and Luke 23:29.  In each of these cases “paps” is referred to as mothers’ breasts which give milk. This is opposed to the word ‘breast’ which can refer to a woman’s breasts or a man’s chest, as in the word breastplate, which is an armored covering for the chest. Never, in the Bible is the plural form of breast used to refer to a single male.  (A girdle is merely a covering, and can refer to a cover for any part of the torso.)

If John were referring to a male chest in his description of the heavenly Jesus, then his hand as guided by God would have said “breast” as in his description of angelic coverings in chapter 15 [1].  But, since what he was seeing was clearly a set of female breasts wrapped in gold, he used the clearly maternal and feminine description of God’s rack as “paps.”

Now that I have shown that the Bible clearly states that the Jesus half of God is female, I will move on to the confusion this causes our Lord.

God’s confusion about sexual identity is apparent throughout the Bible.  He allows and even commands rape, yet requires you to marry someone you rape, while commanding you to kill a girl who has been raped if she isn’t able to stop the rapist; he allows for the burning of prostitutes, but then chooses one as a companion and the deliverer of the news of his/her resurrection; provides the death penalty for masturbation; and allows men to commit adultery, but punishes women who do, then later on decides to punish both.  But, nowhere is his identity crisis more apparent than his condemnation of homosexuals.

God Says Kill Her

God Says Kill Her

In Leviticus 18:22 a gay man[2] is an abomination comparable to eating shellfish, or seeing a woman on her period naked, and the punishment is banishment. But in the next chapter the punishment becomes death, just as for adulterers, kids who talk back to their parents, and those who sleep with their mother or son,  daughter-in-law or father-in-law,  mother-in-law or son-in-law, and those women unfortunate enough to be married to a man who sleeps with her mother whether she knows or not. [3]

This shows a clear confusion about punishment by giving us a choice about punishment for some things. This confusion is reflected in our own good Christian society which doesn’t try to prevent adulterers, or estranged offspring, from getting married while trying to prevent others from doing so. It is also shown by God him/herself and his/her representatives on Earth when they condemn homosexuals as bad, but forgive men like Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, and Larry Craig for homosexual adultery.  This seems to imply that it is OK to be homosexual and commit adultery, just as long as you are married to a woman first.

Hitler killed homosexuals, are you saying that God would act like Hitler?  Surely not.  Despite his being a good Christian, Hitler’s saying he was doing the “Lords work” doesn’t mean he was, just as others claiming the same thing are often lying.

Clearly God is confused about his own sexual identity.  He does the same as many religious closet-homosexuals, like the men mentioned above, and cries for the heads of homosexuals the loudest to defer scrutiny away from themselves.  The phrase: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” comes immediately to mind. But, it is an understandable confusion since the male and female halves of God are fused just as man and woman, whom he created, are symbolically fused by marriage in Genesis 2:24

This concludes this lesson.  Now that I have undeniably shown the ways in which God is a confused creator as well as the reasons for this confusion I will leave you to further reflection and prayer.

Yours in Christ,

Brother Ron, PhD, MD, DDS, BfF, LLC, STd [4]

Footnotes:

1.  The plural form here does not imply that each angel had multiple breasts, it is referring to all seven ‘breasts’ or ‘chests’, one each.

2.  Gay women are never referred to by the Bible in any way, much less as an abomination. Every form of adult sexual activity from masturbation to sleeping with one’s mother, that God feels is wrong, is adequately covered, so it can be safely inferred that God sees nothing wrong with a little girl on girl action.  Bisexuals are OK, but only if they are women. Transgenders are OK, but only if they don’t wear clothing of the opposite sex or, in the case of males, trim their beards, but this latter caveat applies to all men anyway.

3.  It is however OK, according to God to sleep with one’s grandparent, grandchild, any cousin, niece, or nephew.  In the case of sleeping with one’s sister-in-law, or aunt the punishment is merely not having the ability to have children. Obviously in the case of sleeping with an aunt it is the nephew being punished because the aunt is doing nothing wrong. The punishment for sleeping with a sister is the same as sleeping with a woman on her period, banishment.  Sleeping with one’s daughter seems to also be OK. This would all be negated of course if the person were married because the punishment would then revert back to death.

4.  This, of course stands for “saved through divinity” and not what your foul, evil, minds thought it was.

Questions about Answers in Genesis: Part 1-Genesis 1-11 as Literal History

Part 1 of a Multi-Part Series on articles from answersingenesis.org

This post was prompted by the article from the Answers in Genesis website entitled: Did Bible Authors Believe in a Literal Genesis?

In Did Bible Authors Believe… the author (Terry Mortenson) tries to make the case that since the authors of the various parts of the Bible take the stories found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis as “…straightforward, reliable history…” then this is the only way someone should read it if they want to get the correct message from the Bible as a whole. Mortenson, who has a Ph.D.(?) in the History of Geology which is not about the history of geology from a school that teaches neither history nor geology, takes a rather wandering and illogical route through various ideas and Bible passages to prove his hypothesis, and brings us to his conclusion that:  “We should take Genesis 1–11 as straightforward, accurate, literal history because Jesus, the Apostles, and all the other biblical writers did so.”

Taken as a whole, this article could easily supply me with a half-dozen or so posts about circular logic, presumptive analysis, scriptural cherry-picking, and several other topics, but it was the following footnote which really grabbed my attention as something by which Mortenson completely contradicts, and invalidates his own conclusions:

17 Why Christians have trouble believing Genesis 3 when it speaks of a talking serpent is a mystery to me. We have talking parrots today, which involves no miracles. And if the Christian believes in any miracles of the Bible, then he must believe that Balaam’s donkey was used by God to speak to the false prophet (Numbers 22:28). Since Satan is a supernatural being who can do supernatural things (e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:11–13; Matthew 4:1–11; 2 Thessalonians 2:8–9), it is not difficult at all to understand or believe that he could speak through a serpent to deceive Eve (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:9).1

Eat the Fruit, Aack, Eat the Fruit

Eat the Fruit, Aack, Drink the Kool-Aid Aack

I will bypass the comparison of a bird which mimics sounds around it through a process that can be fully explained by scientific means, with a donkey as a vessel of God’s speech, and instead focus on the idea that in this note, the snake referred to was a vessel for Satan’s speech.

On its face, and separate from the article it is attached to, this statement is reasonable enough in a conversation about Bible stories from a literalist stand, but his referenced passages, when taken in the context of his own article, either contradict his statement, and/or the article or have nothing to do with what he’s saying, while at the same time, do a wonderful job of refuting everything he himself is saying not only in the footnote, but in the article as a whole.

In the second paragraph of his article, Mortenson says: “If we interpret something [in the Bible] literally that the author intended to be understood figuratively, then we will misunderstand the text.”  It is important to remember this statement, as it continually comes up below. He then goes on to give two examples of differing literary styles in the Bible.  In one, he uses an example of an obvious metaphor: “‘I am the door…’ (John 10:9)”, and for the other “‘The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up’ (Matthew 17:22–23)”, he uses as an example of a passage which he says is to be taken literally.  So, let’s look as his cited passages in the footnote above in regards to their being proof of Satan’s supernatural ability to talk through a snake to Eve.

2 Corinthians 11:11-13:

11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows! 12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast.13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.

This passage, in which Paul is talking about how he is careful to continue preaching to keep false prophets from deceiving people, is supposed to be an example of how Satan can do supernatural things, presumably to speak through animals, as God had done in Numbers 22:28.  I can only assume that Mortenson meant to include the following verse which says:

“And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”

With this verse, or without, this is clearly not an example of Satan’s power to do anything supernatural. Mortenson has made the mistake he warned his readers about early in his article: he took words and phrases which are clearly simile as literal statement.  In these passages, no one is actually transforming themselves into anything, they are merely deceiving people by appearing to be something that they are not.  This is made quite clear in the next passage which compares a false prophet’s deceitful practice of pretending to be a man of God with Satan’s deceitful practice of pretending to be a good guy.

Satan_Baptizing_a_disciple_(582x800)If we are meant to assume that Satan is doing an actual transformation, then, according to these passages, the same must be said for the false prophets.  This idea makes no sense, because if Satan, or the false prophet, transformed himself into the good versions of themselves then why would he transform back, when he would now be of God, and therefore be doing the work of God, by telling the truth and doing good, which would negate his desire to transform back into Satan or a false prophet?  As many preachers will tell you, and have told me, you must be careful lest you be proven a fool by your own ignorance

Well, that passage fails, so what about Matthew 4:1-11?

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”

4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:

‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’and,‘In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”

8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”

10 Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

11 Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

439px-Temptation-of-Christ-in-the-WildernessThis, of course is the famous temptation scene.  And, sure enough, Satan’s transporting Jesus around could easily be said to be supernatural.  But remember, Mortenson states that we either read it as literal or not. So, if we are to take this as a literal example of Satan’s literal ability to do such things, then we are led to a rather perplexing issue.

If Satan is literally transporting Jesus around and literally takes him to the top of a mountain to show him “…all the kingdoms of the world and their glory”  then the Earth is flat.  There is no way that from a point on one side of a sphere, no matter how far above the surface of that sphere that point is, one could see the other side of the sphere, so it would be impossible to see “all the kingdoms”; at best, a person could see half, yet the passage clearly uses the word “all.”

So, by Mortenson’s own words, if we take this passage to be a literal word for word account of Satan’s supernatural abilities being used to try to tempt Christ, then we must also accept that the Earth is a disc and not a sphere.  However, another article  written by Mortenson’s colleague, Donald B. DeYoung, for Answers in Genesis, says that nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Earth is flat and “when the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.”  So, is Mortenson interpreting something literally that the author intended to be understood figuratively, and therefore misunderstanding the passages, or is his colleague wrong, and the Earth is flat?  Or are they both wrong, and the Bible cannot be read literally and the Bible is often scientifically inaccurate? (My money is on the answer to the last question being “yes.”)

2 Thessalonians 2:8–9 is just as poor an example of Mortenson’s assertion as the other two:

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,

This passage is clearly referring to another false prophet and his teachings, and when read with the rest of the chapter is meant to reassure the reader that this false prophet is a sign that Christ is on his way.  It refers to the prophet’s being like Satan, but also refers to his being destroyed by God’s breath.  This is clearly a form of parable wherein the false prophet’s teaching will be refuted by the true teachings from God that Paul claims in this letter to be spreading, similar to what I am doing to Mortenson’s teachings here.

All of these references show that Mortenson clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and could also be used to label him as one of his feared ‘false prophets.’ a conclusion which is easily proven by his own treasured source of proof:  the Bible.

Matthew 7:15-19

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

This is, of course, the famous ‘know them by their fruits’ lesson from the Sermon on the Mount. Clearly, Jesus is not saying that false prophets are trees.  He is comparing them to trees and saying that they will be easy to recognize by what they teach i.e. if they teach something which is incorrect, then you can be assured that they are not to be believed because “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.”  In other words, if someone tells you that the Earth is flat:  don’t believe anything else they are saying.  If someone tries to tell you the correct way to interpret the Bible, but then contradicts himself, by interpreting things the wrong way:  they are not to be believed in anything that they say.

And finally, let’s get back to the article and what this footnote is saying.  The article defends, and even demands a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 as required for any validated belief in Jesus. In this footnote, Mortenson is clearly defending the belief that Satan spoke through, or even was, the serpent in the Garden of Eden.  I won’t go into the un-validated belief that this serpent lied to Eve, or somehow deceived her into believing something that wasn’t true, and I won’t go into the un-validated belief that Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden for eating a piece of fruit; what I will focus on is what/or who a literal reading of the story from Genesis 3 tells us the serpent was.

So here are the parts of the story which concerns us here:

Genesis 3:1-4

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden;3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The serpent has no more speaking parts, and later when God is handing out punishments for the whole mess Genesis says:

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:“Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.” (Gen 3:14-15)

According to Mortenson, these parts of chapter 3, along with everything else from the first word of chapter 1 through chapter 11 are to be taken as “as straightforward, accurate, literal history.”  So, let’s do so.

The first sentence of chapter three, clearly identifies the antagonist as a cunning “beast”, who talks to Eve.  Absolutely nowhere does it say that another being is talking through it, or that it is anything other than a serpent. Now, some might say that it is implied, but I would counter with Numbers 22:28 which is used by Mortenson in which the verse’s author clearly states that that God uses a donkey to speak to someone, combined with the story of Job wherein we see that Satan has no power to turn people away from God without God’s permission (Job 1:11-12).  (Before someone says that this passage shows that God gave this power to Satan, and that it proves that Satan has the power to corrupt people; I would point out that a literal reading would show that Satan is only given the power to corrupt Job and that this episode happens well after the story of the serpent and Eve, which would show that Satan had no such power prior to this point.)

The implication of this, as viewed through Mortenson’s hypothesis is that a) if it were Satan talking through the snake it would have been clearly stated as such, and b) if it were Satan, he couldn’t have done such a thing without permission which would imply that God caused the fall of man.

But, OK, there might be a way to weasel and wriggle through that.  Which is where verses 14-15 come in.  In these verses, God is clearly talking to a serpent, and that serpent is being punished by God with the loss of his legs, and enmity between it and humans who will constantly be stomping on its head.  A truly literal reading of this shows the creation of the snakes we know today that crawl around on their belly and are disliked by most people.

But, it could be said that God was punishing, not a snake, but the Satan who was talking through him.  Again, as I showed above, that doesn’t swing with a literal reading of what is supposed to be straightforward, accurate, literal history.  In fact, implying that God was talking to or about something different than what is written is the exact opposite of a literal reading.  Even if it were the case that it was Satan being punished, then by a literal reading, Satan would no longer have legs, and would have to crawl around on his belly.  This is clearly not the case, because we see in Job 1:6 that Satan has the capacity to be “going to and fro on the earth, and…walking back and forth on it.”  This clearly states that Satan was literally walking, so could not have been the entity who was talking in the Garden of Eden, and therefore not the entity who helped bring about the fall of man.

A literal reading of Genesis chapter 3, by Mortenson’s criteria would show that a, now extinct, species of once-legged, talking snakes is responsible for the fall of man, and that Satan has been unfairly accused of this crime for several millennia, something which is refuted by some of the same passages that Mortenson tries to use to back up his statements.

I would love to see Answers in Genesis’ answer to why that happened.

Footnotes:

1.  In contrast to most of my other posts, I am using the New King James version (NKJV) of the Bible instead of the King James (KJV).  I do this because the author of the article in question used this version, and I felt that it was only fair that I use his own preferred version for any passages that I use to refute him.

Free Will and the Creation of Evil

One of the big point/counter-points in the God debate is the existence of evil in the World.

People looking at the World through the lens of logic and common sense will often point out that, if God created everything, then he created all the evil, pain, and suffering in the World.

Those looking through the lens of mythology will counter the argument by saying that it was man who introduced these things through bad execution of their God-given free-will.

Before we continue, It’s important to stop here for a moment and discuss the term ‘Evil.’ When I, and many other atheists, talk about evil we are not referring to some concrete item or thing, in much the same way we would not call ‘good’ a thing; to do so is actually quite silly. Evil as a thing is a religious concept e.g. Satan, the Devil, demons, etc.

Instead, when most atheists talk about evil, they are talking about things that they find abhorrent such as:  murder, rape, genocide, slavery, etc.  These things are then clumped together in a category of things to which people give the label of Evil.  Therefore, when most atheists talk about God’s having created evil they are not talking about him creating a specific thing, but rather talking about his creation of the things and conditions which they commonly call evil things.

So, with that out of the way, let’s pretend for a moment that God is real, and take a look at free will and the creation of evil through the lens of what the Bible and its apologists say about God.

Free Will is a term used to describe a person’s ability to make choices about any given situation:  Will I have steak or chicken? Coke or Pepsi? Kill children or not? Eat from the tree or not? Commit adultery or not?, Commit Genocide or not?  And so on.  These choices are based on past experiences, how one thinks, perceptions, how one feels at the time of the decision, etc.

So where does this ability come from, well God of course since he created everything, and created man in their own image

It follows that if God created everything, he also created the human brain and the way it responds to experience and stimuli, as well as all of the ingredients that go into a person’s eventual decisions, so he also creates the result of those decisions.  For example here’s a hypothetical situation:  

Two people meet and fall in love.  Both of these people were created by God, and the triggers for attraction between these people were also created by the same God, as were the sensations and thoughts that become the abstract concept of love.  He also created the people, places, and things which led to the two lovebirds meeting in the first place. Meaning, they fell in love because of what God had created, and, as we’ll see later, he did this all on purpose, without the lovebirds having a choice (or freewill) in the matter.

Time goes by and the two people get married, move to Oklahoma, and have a daughter. Once again, the things which led to these decisions were created by God, and done so on purpose.

Union_City_Oklahoma_Tornado_(mature)When the little girl is two weeks old, a massive tornado (purposely created by God), destroys the family’s home in the middle of the night killing the little girl who dies alone and crying under a pile of rubble which slowly crushes her to death, and also kills the mother when a beam from the ceiling crushes her skull.  These deaths are the result of a combination of the mother’s and father’s decisions, which were in turn, created by God, and God’s decision to allow the tornado that he created to hit the family’s home.

In the aftermath of the disaster sent from God, something in the father’s brain (which the perfect God created) snaps.  He buys an assault rifle from a local gun store and goes on a killing spree wherein he kills a playground full of women and their preschool-aged children.

So.  Who’s fault was the death of dozens of preschool aged children and their mothers who had brought their children to the playground due to decisions that God created?

Well.  I would say, that if God is real then it was God’s fault because he created the father, the father’s brain, the conditions which led to the father’s break, by proxy the assault rifle, the children who became targets, and the mothers who brought their children to the playground due to conditions which God had created leading to the decisions by the mothers.  But, you might counter, it was the father’s decision to do the killing.

But, was it really his decision?  Let’s see who actually made the decision, by looking a little deeper at the God myth.

According to believers, God is many things, but three things most of all:  He is perfect, all-powerful, and he is all-knowing.  The perfect part is stated and restated many times in the Bible, and churches everywhere. The all-powerful part is apparent in his ability to create and destroy anything, including two-week old children, or to keep them from being harmed, which is something we hear about all the time with lines like “God saved me from (insert any disaster or event here).”  The all-knowing part of God is his ability to know everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen; something else stated and restated repeatedly.

So, as a perfect and all-knowing God, he created the people in the example above, as well as everything which led to every one of their decisions, with full knowledge of what all of this creation would eventually lead to; namely, the playground massacre.  He knew every step of the way that the massacre was going to happen because of what he did.  In fact, he was the only one with free-will in the entire situation, because what he created and when he created it caused everything else, including the father’s decision, to happen, and only he could have changed the creation of these things and the resulting carnage.  And, I say again, God knew all of these things were going to happen while he was creating.

In short, God massacred those children.  To say otherwise is to deny his being perfect, his being all-powerful or his being all-knowing.  Denying any one of these things is denying the God myth as a whole.

Charles-mansonbookingphotoSince God is all-powerful, and knows everything, he created Hitler and everything which led to the Holocaust with full knowledge of what he was doing.  He did the same for Stalin, cancer, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Ebola, Charles Manson, Satan, 9/11, and Justin Bieber.  Since he’s perfect he created these things intentionally. To only give God credit for good decisions and actions while denying God’s role in all of this suffering is to deny the myth of God himself.  

One could even say that the denial of God’s existence was God’s creation and plan, so Atheists are doing God’s work.  That’s if you believe that God is real in the first place which, logically, atheists like myself don’t.

In summary:  If God is real then there is no such thing as free will.  There is only that which is preordained by God, including death, disease, famine, murder, rape, genocide, infanticide, pain, suffering, Justin Bieber, and, of course, Evil.  With a God like that, who needs a Devil?

Of course, there’s also the silly argument that God created, or at least, allows evil so that we would know how good he is, but that’s a whole other stupidity and discussion for another time.