Fire With Fire--Pt 2 (sort of)

It seems that I have started attracting readers who can't understand why simply slapping down a verse from the Bible doesn't send me running to the nearest church.

Well Penn Jilliate said it best when he stated:

"We need more Atheists, and nothing will get you there quicker than reading the Bible."

You see my Christian friends, I went through my childhood with a daily and quite extensive regimen of Bible studies. This constant reading and studying of the Bible led, in part, to my current lack of faith in it. I was not born or raised an Atheist--I learned my way there. In fact you might say that I intellectually evolved. Time permitting I will tell the story of this evolution in a future post.

So, to prove my point about the Bible, I will give you the second installment of my new Series--Fire With Fire, which began with a previous post about Judas.

The Genesis Creation Stories:

Most Christians know, or at least think they know, the creation story as laid out in Genesis. The story generally goes something like:

First there was nothing. Then in six days, God created everything from the stars to wallabies. He created things in order beginning with light, and eventually formed the first man, Adam, out of clay. In order to give Adam some company, he took from Adam a rib, and from that created the first woman, Eve, and all was good.

After creation, Eve was tricked by a talking snake into eating something she wasn't supposed to. Eve in turn tricked Adam into doing the same. God got pissed, and made the formerly immortal couple mortal, and cursed the woman with child-bearing.

They lived unhappily ever after.

This story is based on Genesis chapters one,two and three (one and two are discussed in the following--three will be saved for later.) Nice story, but it is a combination of two distinctly different stories. Most people don't see this because they know the story before they read it, which causes them to read into the stories what they already believe, and to read over the parts that don't make sense.

Here I will rectify this mistake.

Story One--Genesis 1

(Since the Bible in all of its versions can be found online I will give links to the chapters and verses I will use, and will only quote the verses when necessary for clarification. I invite readers, especially the believers, to follow along with whatever version they have or the online connections I supply)

Genesis 1:1-5:

"In the beginning" God creates the heavens and the Earth. The Earth is kind of a blob with water on it and is dark. God creates light, separates it from the darkness and calls the light day and the dark night. He is done for day one.

Genesis 1:6-8

God creates the sky which divides the water; some water on the Earth and some above the sky. He calls the sky "heaven," and is done for day two.

Genesis 1:9-13

God gathers all the water under the sky into one place, and causes dry land to appear. On the dry land he put plants including trees, and then stops for the day. End of day three.

Genesis 1:14-19

God creates the stars and other heavenly lights to be used to determine days, seasons, and years and puts them in the sky. He then creates the Sun and the Moon and puts them in the sky. He stops for the day. Day four complete.

Genesis 1:20-23

God creates all of the fish, and birds. He gives them the ability to procreate then ends his work for day five.

Genesis 1:24-31

Day six. God creates all of the land animals. Then they decide to create man in their image and put them in charge of the other things they have created. Then God makes men and women, and commands them to procreate and care for the Earth. He then makes everything vegetarian, stands back and looks at his creations and declares them "Good." End of day six.

Genesis 2:1-3

These verses are the end of the story in chapter 1.

(Remember, originally the Bible didn't have chapters and verses these were added later by the Catholic church to make the Bible easier to read.)

God is finished with creating and takes day seven to rest. He sanctifies this day making it a day of rest.

Now the contradictions begin:

Genesis 2:4

Intro to the story of creation, which was concluded in the last verse. ????

Genesis 2:5

There is an Earth, but no plants, no rain, and no man. Yes there are--he created them on days three (plants), one (rain), and six (mankind).

Genesis 2:6-7

God causes it to rain, then creates a man. There are still no plants or animals. Which contradicts Genesis 1:11-25 during which time he creates all of the plants and animals before man. How do I know there aren't any plants or animals yet? Well, just read on.

Genesis 2:8

God creates Eden, and puts the man (no name yet) there.

Genesis 2:9

God creates plants, or at least trees:

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So is it trees before man and woman (Genesis 1:11 then 1:27), or man (no woman) then trees as it says here. Did he create everything then decide that it was in fact not good and start all over? Or is this two different stories?

Genesis 2:10-15

God creates some rivers, and precious stones then puts the man back in the garden to take care of it. It doesn't say when he took our gardener out of the garden after having already put him there, but at least now he's back.

Genesis 2:16-17

God informs the man that he can eat anything in the garden but fruit from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." God informs the man that if he does eat from that tree he "shalt surely die."

Genesis 2:18-20

God decides that the man needs help in the garden so he creates all of the animals to help the man out.

OK stop, in the last chapter God created all of the animals over a couple of days, and THEN created men and women. Here it says that he created a man, no woman, then created the animals (no fish yet, though) to be the man's little helpers. Which is the actual story?

Anyway, when God takes the animals to the man we finally find out that the man's name is Adam. Adam names all of the animals, but can't find any animals that will be good helpers.

Genesis 2:21-25

To rectify his mistake of not creating a good helper-animal ("...,but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." 2:20) God puts Adam to sleep, removes one of his ribs (ouch) and creates a woman from the rib. When God shows his creation to Adam he declares that she is a woman.

Adam and his un-named wife happily roam around the garden naked.

This ends the creation saga. Genesis 3 is the story of the "fall of man," and as such does not have bearing on this subject. Although there is a glaring problem in chapter three that I will cover in a future post.

So, to clarify, we are to believe that every word of the Bible is true, and does not contradict itself. This has to be the case, because if the Bible contained contradictions it could not be entirely true. Since this is the only document in the Universe in which we are told about God, and is in fact the word of this God, it has to be entirely true, or it is a lie.

The first two books of this Bible clearly contradict each other.

Chapter one order of creation:

The Universe, Earth and water.

Then the light and darkness.

Then the sky.

Then the ground and seas.

Then the plants.

Then the sun, moon, stars, and other planets galaxies etc.

Then fish and birds.

Then land animals.

Then the last thing he creates--men AND women at the same time.

This order of creation is completely different from chapter two:

Chapter 2 vs Chapter 1:

First verses 4 and 5 of chapter 2 say that nothing is here except for the Earth. Since the sky, heavenly bodies, and seas are never mentioned in chapter 2 I am willing to concede that they have been created at this point. The problem is that no life talked about in chapter 1 is here now. Did God start over? If so then the whole seven days thing does not exist. Or is this in fact a different story?

Many believers have tried to explain this problem by saying that chapter two is merely a less detailed retelling of chapter 1. Well that could be the case if both stories got things in the same order and they simply don't.

In chapter two God creates a man (7) THEN trees (9). Earlier we are told that the order is trees then man and woman last.

God creates birds and land animals (19) after trees and a man. Earlier he created birds, then animals, then finally, mankind.

God then creates a woman. Here we have a definite problem. Man-trees-animals-then woman. Earlier it says plants-animals-man and woman at the same time:

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

This, according to chapter 1, was God's final act of creation, and was done on the same day.

Clearly, to anyone who can read, this is two separate and different stories. You can have only one truth, therefore one of these stories must be untrue, which throws the validity of the "true word of God" right out the window. And, if some of the Bible is a lie or fairy-tale then why believe any of it that cannot be supported elsewhere.

Homer's Iliad tells of the Trojan War, complete with Helen of Troy, Achilles, Odysseus, Zeus, Hera, and many other supernatural and superhuman characters. For centuries most people thought that the whole story, and it's companion The Odyssey were a collection of mythology and morality tales, and that Troy never existed. Then in the 1870's the fabled city of Troy was found to be real.

Does the finding of Troy make the Iliad and Odyssey true stories. There are no contradictions in these tales and there is historical evidence for the Greeks, and Trojans having really existed, so these stories have just as much proof of their validity as the Bible, without the contradictions, and predate the Bible by many centuries. It would be much easier to believe in the story of Achilles than in the story of Adam, or Noah, or even Jesus.

Now I am not so naieve as to believe that these facts will change the minds of people who prefer only facts that support their position, but until contradictins like those between Genesis 1 and 2, or Genesis 1 and 3, or the stories of Judas' death, etc. can be explained fully in logical terms that can't be refuted by the Bible itself, there will be no need for me to believe in the Bible's validity as an instruction maunal for life.

Debate With Dan

For the past couple of days, I have been engaged in a debate with Dan, the author of a Blog entitled "The Truth".

Until now this debate has taken place in the comments section of his blog and in the comments sections of three of my previous posts: here, here, and here. Since the debate is not fully contained in any one place, and my most recent reply is not only long, but, I think, useful to others, I have decided to simplify things, and use posts here to continue our discussion.

The following is Dan's most recent statement, and came to me by way of e-mail. It was later published on his blog. My previous reply can be found here:

RE: This was my response to what you wrote
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:30:59 -0800
I can prove there is a God. If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator

I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise. I have experienced God and he reviled himself to me so no man on this earth can tell me otherwise. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

I live by “I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.”

If you take the law of averages which scientist loves then you have to admit that Christianity is ranked number one at 2-3 billion Christians. So if 30 people tell you your drunk then fall down. Well 3 billion people base there various and different experiences and intellects and cultures on ONE faith not to mention entire countries basing there dating system on Jesus i.e. the year is 2006 after our lord Jesus rose from the dead. You must conclude in a scientific hypothesis that Christ did exist and even Islam admits to that and that makes over 70% of the entire world believes in Jesus. But you are here to tell me he doesn’t and that makes you a foolish person in denial. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

You may be spending eternity in the lake of fire. If you are wrong are you willing to base your salvation on what you believe? If I am right I will spend eternity in Heaven and if I am wrong I just turn into worm meat. IF you are right you become worm meat but if you are wrong you will spend eternity in Hell. Have you done the research like us Christians? Google and go to “Hell’s best kept secret”

God bless you on your journey

My retort follows: (I have broken Dan's comment into pieces to ensure an understandable context for my answers)

Paragraph One:

"I can prove there is a God. If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator"

I already covered this with a prior comment.

Paragraph Two:

"I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise. I have experienced God and he reviled himself to me so no man on this earth can tell me otherwise. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

Since this paragraph is something of a run-on, I will break it into pieces and address the pieces separately.

First piece:

"I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise."

First--a bit of confusion on my part--Are you saying that the child/iron parable is your experience? If so, a parable hardly qualifies as experience. If not then OK.

As for the example/parable: If the child believes the iron to be hot, he would not touch it. What is more likely going on is that he doesn't trust his father (perhaps because his father had lied in the past), and then proves to himself, by way of a simplified form of the scientific method, that his father was right. The child will now believe that all irons are hot; at least until further scientific study shows that he is wrong, and that, in fact, only "some" Irons are hot.

The lad has engaged in an activity that will prove invaluable throughout his life: he has formed a hypothesis--the iron's not hot, an experiment--touching the iron, and then based upon his experiment, formed a theory--all irons are hot. He will no doubt perform another experiment or series of them and discover that his initial theory is flawed and form a modified theory based on his new findings such as--not all irons are hot.

Eventually, through many repetitions of his experiment, and with the same findings coming from others who perform the same exact experiments our lad will formulate a law such as--some, but not all irons are hot.

Then he, or maybe someone following in his footsteps will pursue the question--why are some irons hot and others not.

But, the young man will always know that some irons are hot, in the same way that he knows that the initial iron is hot when the second, and I might say abusive, adult comes along and says that the iron isn't hot, because he has proof that it is; proof that he can easily share by showing the second adult (the non-believer if you will) the burn on his hand, thereby supplying empirical evidence for his position.

You have yet to show me your burn.

As for the piece where you discuss God making himself hated by you I am confused. Unless, of course you mean revealed and not reviled. In which case, I would counter with my own experience with the Baggins. [see previous retort]

I would be considered insane if I went up and down the street shouting that I had seen the Baggins, and I dare say that few if any would come to me for some divine knowledge. But, many people have claimed to have seen God--Jim Jones, and David Koresh come immediately to mind as does Joseph Smith. Despite their claims I have not decided to drink poison kool-aid, not burnt myself alive at a compound in Texas, and have not become a Mormon. This is because I don't have a habit of blindly accepting anything I am told.

In fact Muhammad also had God reveal himself to him. Should I believe that?

Then we have your philosophy on life:

"I live by 'I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.'"

If this is how you decide to live, then that is your decision, but for me this is an old argument which was once thrown at me by my late-wife's priest. He and I had regular philosophical debates. I like talking with Catholic Priests about such things because they are generally better educated than most clergy, and don't hold to the antiquated notion that the Bible is literal truth. But, I digress.

Under this logic, shouldn't you believe in the Hindu afterlife, the Jewish after-life, the Buddhist, the ancient Greek, ancient Roman, Sumerian, Babylonian or any number of other beliefs that were written down long before the Christian one? What if I said that if you don't follow the teachings of Frodo Baggins and Gandolf you will go to Hell? You would naturally say that these beliefs were silly and had no basis in reality, and therefore wouldn't consider it a risk to not follow them.

Better yet what if my neighbor wrote two conflicting stories about my Frodo-given ability to create Wallabies out of muffins, then presented them to you as the only place in the universe that told that story, and said that it was the Frodo's honest truth. It would no doubt be easy for you to refute his claim because of the two conflicting stories. Without some kind of unbiased supporting document or a news story saying the same thing my neighbor's story would fall flat on it's own merits.

In the spirit of this parable read Genesis chapter one then go back later and read chapter two. Then answer the following question: If the Bible can't even get the creation story straight then how am I supposed to believe any of it? And since it is the only place there is an argument for the Christian god in the entire universe, why should I believe in such a god based on flawed evidence? (In case you don't see what I am talking about--I had already intended to post a blog about the conflict in the Genesis creation stories, so I will do so following this one for clarification)

For that matter explain the two versions of Judas' death I talked about in an earlier post. The Catholics have a good, albeit flawed, answer for these issues, but it involves accepting a lot of the Bible as fairy-tale, which I doubt you are ready to do.

So, I reverse the statement, and say that I would rather live my life, the only one I get. I know that I will eventually die and that will be the end of me, so I won't waste my life by expending time, money, or energy that could be spent with my children or in any number of other useful and/or enjoyable activities by following a religion based on Bronze Age myths.

Then we have a rather unwieldy Paragraph Four:

"If you take the law of averages which scientist loves then you have to admit that Christianity is ranked number one at 2-3 billion Christians. So if 30 people tell you your drunk then fall down. Well 3 billion people base there various and different experiences and intellects and cultures on ONE faith not to mention entire countries basing there dating system on Jesus i.e. the year is 2006 after our lord Jesus rose from the dead. You must conclude in a scientific hypothesis that Christ did exist and even Islam admits to that and that makes over 70% of the entire world believes in Jesus. But you are here to tell me he doesn’t and that makes you a foolish person in denial. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

First off, the law of averages does not apply here, a census does. And, as we are shown in in 2 Samuel chapter 24 God will kill at least 70,000 of his own people in payment for a king taking a census. As for a hypothesis based on the census... . A hypothesis is an educated guess that is put to experimentation in order to arrive at a theory. Due to my education, I would never arrive at a hypothesis as baseless as the existence of Christ.

So many things--so little space, so bear with me here.

First: If thirty people tell me I'm drunk, and I haven't been drinking then I will suspect that those thirty people are nuts or trying to fool me. If I am in fact drunk, then I will know that before they tell me.

Second: Actually it is the year 2006 after the year your lord was supposedly born--get your facts straight. It has nothing to do with death as many people believe. A.D. is an abbreviation for anno Domini and actually means "the year of our lord." It is also incorrect by several years.

As for using the B.C./A.D. system, the Chinese calender, and the Jewish calender predate ours which is only some five hundred years old. It was created by an Italian doctor, and decreed as official by Pope Gregory XIII (hence the name--Gregorian calender). We continue to use it and the B.C./A.D. system out of simplicity not out of a belief in Jesus. If the World's still using it could prove anything along the line of religion, it would be that the Catholics were, and thereby, are right because they conceived the whole idea. And, in fact, most scholarly material now uses B.C.E. and C.E. which stands for: "Before Christian (or Common) era", and "Christian (or Common) era", and acknowledges only the existence of Christians, not Christ.

Third: Not too many years ago, the entire population of the planet, save for a few smart people, believed that the Earth was flat, and that the Sun, stars, and all other things in the universe revolved around the Earth, both concepts found in the Bible. Did majority opinion make these things true?

Two-hundred years ago, the majority of Christian American citizens believed that slavery was morally acceptable. Is that true?

By your argument, anybody who believed that Christ was God in 20 a.c.e. was a fool, because the majority of the World's population had never heard of the guy. Does their ignorance of your savior exclude them from your logic? Just because a majority of people are ignorant of a fact the fact is still a fact, and just because a majority of people believe a lie--it is still a lie.

Fourth: If your god exists, and the Bible is his word then by calling me foolish, you have earned the wrath of your god and are looking at going to your own Hell
by violating the words of Jesus found in Matthew 5:22:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

If you are right about the whole Jesus thing then you may want to start begging for forgiveness.

A fool as defined by Websters can be a few things (including a dessert), but the two most commonly held definitions are:

1) "a person lacking in judgment or prudence"
2) "a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding"

Both definitions imply a lack of ability to understand things and see beyond what they are told to believe, i.e. one who can't think for ones self, as in "a fool and his money are soon parted." Only a fool believes something for which there is no proof, and much proof against.

As for my being in denial: that infers that I have all of the evidence laid out before me, yet continue to ignore it--it would seem that I am not the one in denial, because I am not the one disregarding evidence. I cannot be in denial about something unless there is some shadow of belief.

Fifth: As for the quote from John, I think I have already established that I have no more fear of his warnings than I do of Thor's.

Next you say:

"You may be spending eternity in the lake of fire. If you are wrong are you willing to base your salvation on what you believe? If I am right I will spend eternity in Heaven and if I am wrong I just turn into worm meat. IF you are right you become worm meat but if you are wrong you will spend eternity in Hell. Have you done the research like us Christians? Google and go to 'Hell’s best kept secret'"

Simple answers to the questions are: Yes and Yes. Both of which I think I have shown here. Can you answer both questions the same way?

As for the writings and teachings of Ray Comfort, I am way ahead of you, which is why it was so easy to refute your claims, many of which it would seem are plagiarised from Mr. Comfort.

I promise that his teachings will be covered by a future post, doing so here would get off of the subject and take up too much space.

So, stay tuned.

Finally we have:

"God bless you on your journey"

Thanks for the blessing. Frodo bless you.

Your Turn.

The Rev and E. R. Rudolph--Self-Appointed Archangel and Killer for Their Baby-Killer God

Well folks, it's been a few days since the Rev doomed me to Hell, and still no response back to my request for a debate. I know that Michelle is probably right and such a debate will never happen, so I figure that I will explain some of the allusions I made in my invitation to Mr. Spitz.

NOTE:

In this post I give links to Don Spitz's website as a form of citation for my statements and assertions. Some of these links will immediately expose you to genuinely horrific photos of mutilated human fetuses. I cannot emphasize enough how horrific these photos are. The inclusion of these photos on the Rev's site is a standard, and extremely distasteful part of the tactics employed by Don Spitz and his followers during the abortion debates of the late 90's.

While I somewhat agree with the position that use of such graphic imagery is protected under the First Amendment, I do not agree that such imagery should be used in public or without warning--it is no different than pornography, and should be regulated as such.

Further more, nothing I say in the following REQUIRES the reader to follow the links; I will give all necessary information and quotes here. I only add the links, because I was taught to always cite my sources, and as a way to prove to detractors that I am not making this shit up.

Thank you--now on to my Rant.

In the post that caught the Rev's attention, and in my reply post to the Rev, I alluded to fundamentalist Christian terrorists and/or the Rev's support of these pieces of human filth. The reference that generated Rev's interest and comments was a man by the name of Eric Robert Rudolph.

Rudolph was engaged in a series of bombings in the American South during the late 1990's that killed three people, and injured 150 others. His "targets" were abortion clinics, a lesbian nightclub, and the Atlanta Olympics. Rudolph's reasoning for these attacks was to stop abortion, the "gay agenda", and to strike at the federal government which, he said supported these things.

Rudolph was put on the FBI's Most Wanted list in 1998, and captured without a fight five years later outside Murphy, North Carolina while digging through garbage cans for food.

Following his capture, Rudolph entered into a plea agreement to avoid the death penalty, and now resides in an 80 square foot concrete cell at the ADX Florence supermax federal prison in Colorado.

I well remember Rudolph's terrorist acts, and his capture. At the time of his capture I was living in Asheville, North Carolina which is just a couple of hours, by mountain roads, from Murphy. Rudolph's capture was front page news for sometime, as was the continuing investigation into people in and around Murphy who helped Rudolph during his time as a fugitive (He was clean shaven and was wearing new shoes when he was caught.) Many wackos in the area around Murphy were vocal supporters of Rudolph, and saw him as a hero. Rudolph's brother videotaped himself cutting his own hand off with a power-saw as a sign of support for his sibling--talk about a screwed up family. The hand was successfully reattached by doctors with scientific medical training, and not by a faith healer.

What does Rudolph have to do with Don Spitz? Well, the Rev was, and still is, Rudolph's most vocal supporter. The Rev's website (SEE WARNING ABOVE) lists Rudolph, along with other murderers, among those whom he calls "Heroes of the Faith," and "Prisoners of Christ." (I know---The last title seems stupid, because Christ is obviously not running federal prisons, but it's the Rev's title not mine.)

Rev's support of Rudolph is based on a number of principles:

1)- Abortion is a sin in God's eyes.
2)- The killing of anyone associated with abortion is sanctioned by God.
3)- The killing of someone who performs, or allows to be performed, an abortion is no different than killing a person who is about to murder a child. And anybody would say it was OK to kill someone who is about to shoot an innocent child.

Obviously this reasoning is stupid in the eyes of any sane person, and society in general, but the Rev, and his kind, feel that they are immune from society's rules if these rules are superseded by God's. So, let's pretend that God's rules apply. If this were the case, then Rudolph is bound for Hell, and so is the Rev for supporting him. If Rev actually read the book he is so fond of thumping he would know this.

First principle--Abortion is a sin--Is it? No.

Unlike the word kill (as in 'Thou shalt not kill'), the word abortion is no where in the Bible, so for anyone who is mandated to only follow rules from the Bible, making rules concerning abortion would be in violation of their own code.

However, there is one instance of law in the Bible that could be construed to pertain to abortion:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."

Exodus--21:22-25
(All Biblical references contained in this post are from the King James Version of the Bible. I do this because most fundamentalists don't accept the authority of other translations, and because it reminds me of Shakespeare)

(This whole chapter of Exodus is basically a statement of laws among which are killing a murderous ox, and letting a slave go free if you put out his eye)

In plain English, this law states that if you do something to a pregnant woman that causes her to miscarry (spontaneously abort a fetus), but don't do anything else that harms her, then you are to be judged by men: especially the woman's husband. But if following the miscarriage you do her further harm you are to suffer the same harm you caused--cut her: you get cut, cause her to lose an arm: your arm comes off, kill her: you die.

Obviously, the condition of the fetus is not the issue--God doesn't care about the fetus, only the woman. This is likely based on the premise that a person is not a person until he/she has been born as shown numerous times in the Bible; such as when God created Adam and:

"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis--2:7

So, killing a fetus is not a sin, because people are not "living souls" until birth. And, any perceived problems with the well-being of the mother are not the fault of anyone around the man who caused the abortion: only the man. Plus there is no mention of a woman being in trouble for abortion, or miscarriage, so she's not sinning. And, the punishment applies only to MEN, so a female doctor has no possible problems at all with being a sinner. Before anyone claims than MEN means mankind, you should first read your Bible. God uses the word man sometimes to mean men and women, but never the word men. When he says "men," he means adult male humans.

But, killing a woman (without cause) is definitely a sin.

Spitz-principle #2--The killing of anyone associated with abortion is sanctioned by God.

Well, aside from what I have shown above about abortion not being sin, and only the actual man doing harm being punished, there is the matter of the people Rudolph actually killed: an off-duty police officer, a nurse, and an innocent bystander.

The nurse worked at an abortion clinic, in Birmingham, and the officer was moonlighting as night security at the same clinic. Rudolph and Spitz claim that under the association clause of their principles these were killings sanctioned by God, which I have already shown would not be the case.

The first of Rudolph's victims was a woman who was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and was killed by Rudolph's Olympic Park bombing during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. This woman was not gay, was not an agent of the federal government, and had neither performed nor had an abortion nor worked at an abortion clinic. She was simply a parent enjoying the Olympics with her son.

Eric Rudolph murdered a completely innocent woman without cause, and is therefore guilty of murder in the eyes of God and is to be put to death. By giving Rudolph the sanction of God in this murder, Rev. Spitz is blaspheming, lying, and putting words into God's mouth falsely. Any one of these actions is, according to Spitz's Bible, punishable by death. So, who's going to Hell now Rev?

Then there's the last principle-- The killing of someone who performs, or allows to be performed, an abortion is no different than killing a person who is about to murder a child. And anybody would say it was OK to kill someone who is about to shoot an innocent child.

Well we have already seen that the first part of this is wrong. However, I will agree with the justification for killing someone about to kill an innocent child. This brings up a rather interesting conundrum for Spitz, his supporters, and his followers, as well as most Bible thumpers, because, if the Bible is true, God is the biggest killer of innocent children in recorded history.

Through direct action by, or upon instruction from God an untold number of innocent children were killed when the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed; Every innocent child on the planet was killed by the flood in Genesis; Following a battle with the Midianites, every male Midianite child was killed; Menahem, a king of Israel and servant of God followed a battle by "ripping up" all pregnant women on the other side, and on and on and on.

Here are some more passages describing the baby killer God in action:

Deuteronomy 2:34-- utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.

Deuteronomy 28:53-- And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.

I Samuel 15:3-- slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

2 Kings 8:12-- dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

Isaiah 13:16-- Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished. (rape is fine too)

Isaiah 13:18-- They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Lamentations 2:20-- Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.

Ezekiel 9:6-- Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.

Hosea 9:14-- give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. (a supernatural abortionist)

Hosea 13:16-- their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

And what state of mind should baby killers have?

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Psalm 137:9

Then there's the problem with murder by inaction. If a good person kills someone who is about to kill an innocent child, then wouldn't it follow that an evil person allows the death of innocent children? If you have the power to stop the killing of a baby with no chance of harm coming to you, and don't use that power, aren't you at least an accessory in that killing? Well of course you are.

So, when an all-powerful God allows, much less causes, babies to die is he not evil? God (assuming that he's real) can stop the death of a child when he wants to: he did so in Genesis 22. He can even bring children back after he allows them to die as is shown in Job 42.

So with all of this power to save babies why has God allowed every abortion, miscarriage, death from AIDS, act of infanticide, and death from "acts of God" of every baby killed in such ways throughout human history. Surely a being such as this does not deserve to exist, and quite frankly sounds like more of a demon than a benevolent God.

Then there are all of the abortions that could be laid at Don Spitz's feet. Many, leaders and observers of the anti-abortion side of the abortion debate have credited the actions of Don Spitz, and his followers and heroes, with turning undecided Americans against the "pro-life" movement in the 90's, as well as strengthening the case for the pro-choice side. It could easily be assumed that this caused the abortion debate to be initially lost by the anti side, and thereby allowing every legal abortion performed in this country for the last decade.

So, if Don Spitz truly believes that abortion is a sin, and that anyone who helps it happen should be killed he should fall on his own sword. But, he, like Rudolph, is obviously afraid of death, and their residence afterward, so I'm sure this won't happen.
I rest my case---for now.

Atheist Answers

In celebration of my having drawn a second Christian attack on the percieved state of my soul, I would like to offer up the following links.

They are links to youtube videos of the six parts of a series put out by
digitalfreethought.com called Atheism 101. It is essentially answers to many questions and challenges thrown at atheist by religious folk. There are many answers that I had already had, but there are some really good well thought out answers that I had never considered.

If I had the power I would show this in every Sunday school class across the World.

If you would rather not watch the videos the digital free thought link above will take you to a text version--just click on the "answers" button in the right margin.

Hope you enjoy and/or learn something.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Text Version Remember--click the "answers" button.