tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85354578299572508532024-03-13T09:04:16.801-07:00Truth SearchingSearching the real truth of matters regarding various things in life, including biblical and religious origins.MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-27571187822777810682017-06-10T21:58:00.000-07:002017-09-11T09:16:05.168-07:00If I Was God...#6<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z7zAweNfJGI/WTzNkshD6sI/AAAAAAAAHNk/LiRdReWpkLMWtLQR1CAJloSpnSLLcfFzACLcB/s1600/godseries2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1501" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z7zAweNfJGI/WTzNkshD6sI/AAAAAAAAHNk/LiRdReWpkLMWtLQR1CAJloSpnSLLcfFzACLcB/s320/godseries2014.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
If I was God, I would never let an evil man like Joshua be a spokesman for me. This man dared command in God's name that a child be murdered and laid at the foundation of Jericho after Israel had laid it to waste.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Joshua laid an oath on them at that time, saying, “Cursed before the
LORD be the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho. “At the
cost of his firstborn shall he lay its foundation, and at the cost of
his youngest son shall he set up its gates" </i>(Joshua 6:26).</blockquote>
<br />
Yeah, well if you're not understanding how I'm getting a murder and body-laying at the foundation of Jericho from that, I understand. I'd read the book of Joshua at least a couple times through before, and I'd never realized what this meant. Let's skip to the future during which time Jericho is rebuilt. Ahab, king of Judah, was reigning. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<i>In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho. He laid its foundation at the
cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his
youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which he spoke by
Joshua the son of Nun (</i>I Kings 16:34).</blockquote>
<br />
If you're still lost, all you need to do is look into history to learn about something called <i>foundation sacrifice</i>. It was common in ancient times for peoples to sacrifice individuals and lay them at a city's foundations and/or gates. They believed it would bring good fortune. Archaeologists have unearthed remains of bodies that were laid in the walls of cities. <br />
<br />
The god Joshua served who called Joshua a good and faithful servant was a god who apparently spoke through Joshua his demands that human sacrifices were to be carried out if Jericho was to be built again.<br />
<br />
Are you appalled yet?<br />
<br />
This has been "If I Was God...#6." <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-2299248243589278062017-04-23T16:54:00.005-07:002018-08-30T11:07:03.701-07:00If I Was God...#5<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mzpfk007mgw/WP0-N3SBMQI/AAAAAAAAHKk/vh5ZurH55YIGr_qoA8VWXdz5TNEneojtgCLcB/s1600/godseries2016.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mzpfk007mgw/WP0-N3SBMQI/AAAAAAAAHKk/vh5ZurH55YIGr_qoA8VWXdz5TNEneojtgCLcB/s400/godseries2016.jpg" width="362" /></a></div>
<span id="goog_1420062712"></span><span id="goog_1420062713"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span id="goog_1420062712"></span><span id="goog_1420062713"></span><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If I was God I would never have allowed Sodom to become wicked and would never have considered Lot to be righteous when he was willing to allow his virgin daughters to be gang-raped. No decent person would want to deliver their guests out to be sexually assaulted, but they sure would not send out their innocent daughters to instead be raped. <br />
<br />
Seriously, you mean to tell me that Lot was the last righteous man to live in Sodom? What would any of you wives reading this think of your husband if he answered the door to face the rowdy neighbors, and he sent out your teen daughters for the neighbors to do with them sexually as they please? What would you think if your father did that to you or your sister? What if your husband worshiped the god of Abraham and did these things? What if other worshipers of this god agreed that your husband was a very upright, righteous man? Would you love such a god? Would you love your husband or your father, if he was such a man? <br />
<br />
Lot’s wife is the one who was turned into a pillar of salt during the family’s evacuation of the city. They were all instructed by one of God’s agents not to look back, but Lot’s wife did. She was punished for looking back at the city, because temptation got the best of her. Yet Lot was delivered from the city after having offered his daughters to his horny neighbors. Nearly all of us have seen movies that depict natural disasters or horrible invasions that force people to flee from their city of residence. We’ve all seen people stop and look back in shock and horror. We’ve all thought or shouted aloud, “Go!!! Just go!!!” It’s not because we think their looking back is immoral, but we want them to make it out alive. Maybe Lot’s wife missed her home and her possessions that she’d put so much labor and time into producing—blankets, clothing, eating and drinking vessels and utensils, etc. Maybe she was experiencing grief over lady-friends she had in the city. Maybe her lady friends were decent characters and would never want their daughters gang-raped. Maybe they just happened to not worship a god who approves of men who do their daughters that way. <br />
<br />
Then what does Lot do after he and his daughters hole up in a cave for the rest of their days? He lets his daughters get him drunk, then he has sex with one daughter one night, which results in an incestous son. If anyone of any decency ended up doing something that horrible, they sure as hell wouldn’t let it happen again. Yet the very next night, that sorry motherfucker—no, wait, make that daughterfucker—lets his other daughter screw his drunken ass. Lot was a sick daughterfucker. It really does seem that his daughters would have been better off partying with the rowdy neighbors.<br />
<br />
Now, it’s a common misconception that Sodom’s sin was that they loved to engage in anal sex. That is where our modern word <i>sodomy</i> originated. However, both the biblical book of Ezekiel and the extrabiblical book of Jasher states the reason Sodom was viewed as wicked was their lack of generosity and their downright horrendous treatment of non-resident foreigners. Jasher goes into great detail, although it’s been over a decade since I’ve read it, so I won’t detail anything here now. <br />
<br />
Lot showed hospitality to his guests. I guess it didn’t matter to God that he let his daughters get fucked all night long by whomever wanted a round with them, just so long as he didn’t let that befall his guests. That wouldn’t be showing good hospitality, would it now? I suppose, too, it was very generous of Lot to let his daughters screw him so that they could bear sons. <br />
<br />
I just happen to not subscribe to the same definition of righteousness as Abraham and Lot’s god. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This has been #5 in the "If I Was God..." series. </div>
</div>
MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-25246801795242766042016-12-09T21:54:00.000-08:002017-04-19T20:13:59.736-07:00If I Was God...#4<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-asNdF8pQtys/WEuUxIOOEGI/AAAAAAAAGzI/s_Wqz-Vhx645nZmc8fXKOUnGqkukIEs8QCLcB/s1600/IMG_0638-001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-asNdF8pQtys/WEuUxIOOEGI/AAAAAAAAGzI/s_Wqz-Vhx645nZmc8fXKOUnGqkukIEs8QCLcB/s400/IMG_0638-001.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If I was God, I would be present on the earth and lovingly guide and spend time with my creation. This would especially be the case with humanity.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We all probably have heard of instances in which a parent or parents kicked out a child from their home after the child committed some offense that was abhorrent to the parent(s). Most of us are appalled when we hear such stories. We ask ourselves, as we wonder in astonishment, "What loving parent would do such a thing? That is way too excessive! That is poor parenting." </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Yes, indeed it is, but isn't it the very thing that the bible God(s) did to Adam and Eve? He lost control and angrily threw them out of the pleasant garden that was their home that provided all their needs. All the blame goes on Adam and Eve, and they were thrown out into the cold and harsh wilderness. Not at any point have we ever asked ourselves what blame God should bear for this unruly behavior. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Not only was God unforgiving of Adam and Eve's supposed transgression, but where the hell was he to begin with? Why the hell did he fail to do a better job of preventing Adam and Eve finding trouble in the first place? Why, he's the one who set up the trap! And then he kicked them out. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Thereafter he continued to stay away. He continued in his hard-heartedness, never softening and deciding to forgive, never tracking Adam and Eve down and inviting them back, never apologizing for such excessive punitive behavior and neglectfulness. He has continued to be the absent parent and to allow chaos to run rampant. He's left it up to the very species with which he found fault in the first place to pass on supposed guidance as how to live and has left it up to them to convince fellow species members to believe it all. He won't bother to come down here himself and lovingly straighten it all out, forgive, and go about things a better way. Maybe he's in his abode, drinking himself into a stupor.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Bravo!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This has been #4 in the "If I Was God..." series. </div>
MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-71112733439674813502016-09-21T21:04:00.000-07:002017-04-18T18:45:55.368-07:00America the Great and the Widow's MitesI posted back in February an article in which I shared research I'd compiled regarding <a href="http://www.truthsearching.com/2016/02/is-united-states-of-america-greatest.html">how "great" or not-so-great the United States of America ranks</a> in various categories. The positive thing that America ranks #1 in is generosity, but how generous is it, really?<br />
<br />
I started thinking about this. Are we not the richest nation, or at least <i>live</i> the most richly? One of the only other two things I successfully found that ranked us at #1 was gross domestic product (GDP).<br />
<br />
So it follows that the richest nation damn well <i>ought</i> to be the most generous. It's got <i>far</i> more ability to do so. It's much easier to give and to want (or not mind, at the very least) to give to help others when one <i>is</i> able. Many nations' people cannot afford to do so.<br />
<br />
This reminds me of the Jewish prophet Jesus' parable of the widow and the two copper mites (See Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:3-4 in the Christian New Testament).<br />
<br />
She would have been cast in the lot with the "least generous" if ranked by how much she gave. But she had given all that she had. The rich men gave what appeared to be much, but really it was little if seen in accordance with the status of wealth.<br />
<br />
How would our great nation of the United States of America rank if generosity was calculated Jesus-style?<br />
<br />
How would the rich nation with the #1 world ranking of GDP who boasts about its "most generous" ranking face under Jesus' judgement, if he was elected a judge? Hmm... What was that saying that Jesus is well-known for saying? Something about how hard it is for a rich man to do something...MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-27148646189026954942016-08-17T10:11:00.002-07:002017-04-18T18:41:04.643-07:00Why Do Atheists Insist That the God of the Bible Be Bound to the Same Moral Code?I just answered the following question on Quora:<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #343434; font-family: "q_serif" , "georgia" , "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 20px; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-atheists-insist-that-the-God-of-the-Bible-must-be-bound-to-the-same-moral-obligations-which-He-places-on-His-creations/answer/Tara-Chapman-2">Why do many atheists insist that the God of the Bible must be bound to the same moral obligations which He places on His creations?</a><br />
<br />
<div class="qtext_para" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); color: #343434; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Well, I don't insist such as an atheist, as I don't believe there is a god. I <i style="margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">did</i>, however, insist that when I was a Christian. It's the same principle of parents living the proper example for their children or a law enforcement officer setting the precedent for fellow citizens. As a child of God—as I believed I was—I fully expected God to be better than I was, to set the right example, to certainly not ever sin. If he was to sin, to break his own law, and I supposedly deserve to die and stay dead for breaking any statute of any commandment of that law, then he surely deserved to die, too.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); color: #343434; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
During my last two years as a commandment-keeping Christian, I started seriously questioning, if I knew I felt guilty after yelling at my kids when I'd lost my temper, because it was wrong of me to act that way, then why was it ok for God to feel remorseful and repent of his wrathful and destructive outbursts against his children (including murdering large numbers of them and worse) yet not deserve to die forever without forgiveness? And who must forgive him? I puzzled so much over all the passages of the Hebrew God feeling guilty and repenting each time of the evil he had done. I knew it was not ok that he could get away with it but that we all deserved to die for much, much less (most of us don't send enemies to rape and kill our own children and destroy all they have).</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); color: #343434; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
No one should be above the law, and that most certainly includes any God that has the audacity to create us and expect us to follow a law of his/her/its own making.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); color: #343434; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
That is why I also seriously started questioning the supposed rebellion of angels. Rebellions are often waged by the righteous against tyrants.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); color: #343434; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
If there really was a god, no one should want to bow to tyranny and condone tyranny. Of course, we only need to look back through human history and our present to recognize only tyrants demand worship—strict honor and obedience from their subjects. A righteous leader serves his or her people more than they serve him or her. Jesus even taught this wonderful truth. If you scrutinize the best parents and the worst parents, you'll notice the best parents serve their children far more than the children serve them (which does not mean always doing everything for them, as the best parents train their children to become capable adults). The worst authoritarian parents will sin left and right without consequence but expect perfect obedience from their children; the worst permissive parents will neglect proper care and training of their children. The same goes with the best and worst governments. Governments should be made up of model public servants to serve the citizenry.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); color: #343434; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Tyrants never bother to apply the law to themselves, but they carry out the most severe punishments to those they force into subjection who break the statutes.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); color: #343434; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I implore you never to find yourself excusing a tyrant from keeping his own law that he forces upon his subjects.</div>
MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-50558017956946300472016-03-02T22:27:00.001-08:002016-03-02T22:27:08.899-08:00Bill O'Reilly's Broken Home Hypocrisy<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
I've been pointing out Bill O'Reilly's hateful hypocrisy for over a decade now, along with some of the other very un-Jesus-like individuals on Fox (like Sean Hannity) with their sickening extreme right views of hatred, war-mongering, support of torture, lack of grace, lies and all manner of deception, and so on. And now this...<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ksy7Nj9vXrc" width="480"></iframe>MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-7369790097241805832016-02-27T21:03:00.001-08:002023-05-01T10:11:57.847-07:00Is the United States of America the "Greatest Nation?"It's conditioning. From the time we are young children in elementary school, we are told repeatedly that we live in the greatest nation on earth. "The United States of America is the greatest nation." We are taught that we are so lucky to have been born in the best country there is. And we believe it. To say otherwise, or to even question it, is anathema.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g58VLwCOII8/VrbN7YVb1gI/AAAAAAAAFv4/PM-07wBcFAk/s1600/13-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g58VLwCOII8/VrbN7YVb1gI/AAAAAAAAFv4/PM-07wBcFAk/s200/13-01.jpg" width="192" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="http://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/hand">Hand vector designed by Freepik</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But we <i>ought</i> to question it. I've questioned it for the last decade. Off and on for at least ten years my husband and I have both discussed expatriating. Maybe we eventually will; maybe we won't. I do not know. I <i>do know</i> that there are some very horrible nations on this earth in which people must reside, and I'm <i>not</i> in one of them. I live in the United States, which is a pretty decent place to live. We enjoy a lot of freedoms and safety, as well as a lot of educational and health advantages. However, to say we live in the single greatest nation on earth is stretching the truth. <i>Abundantly.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Health and Safety</b><br />
<br />
Let's take, for example, the health of our nation when compared to other nations. <a href="http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/">The United States ranked 37th</a> in overall health when WHO assessed the nations in 2000. A 2014 assessment by The Commonwealth Fund <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror">ranked the U.S. last</a> of 11 total nations. When looking at maternal health alone, we sit at <a href="http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/SOWM_2015.PDF">61st in the world</a>, whereas our child well-being is <a href="http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/SOWM_2015.PDF">42nd in the world</a>, according to the non-profit organization <a href="http://www.savethechildren.org/">Save the Children</a>. According to their <a href="http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/SOWM_2015.PDF">Mother's Index</a> for the year 2015, the US ranks 33, only because we rank 9th in economic status and 19th in educational status. The last of five categories that are used to come up with the Mother's Index rating for 179 countries is political status, at which we embarrassingly rank 89th place.<br />
<b> </b><br />
We come in <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/04/country.comparisons.life.death/index.html">49th place for life expectancy</a>, at just over 78 years of age, whereas the countries with the two longest life expectancy rates—Monaco and Macau—are just under 90 and nearly 84.5 years, respectively, and the world average is just over 67.<br />
<br />
As far as peace and safety goes, the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3134953/Safety-Try-Iceland-holiday-s-officially-peaceful-country-world-UK-ranked-39th-94th.html">United States ranked 94th place</a>! That is devastating. War-torn Syria ranked in toward the very bottom of the list at 162, being labeled the "most violent." That was the Global Peace Index ranking for 2015. In 2014, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/18/global-peace-index-2014-every-country-ranked">U.S. came in even worst, at rank 97</a>. <br />
<br />
In 2010, Transparency International published a Corruption Perceptions Index, in which <a href="http://www.transparency.org/cpi2010/results">the USA came in 22nd</a>, where 1 is the "cleanest," and 178 is the "most corrupt." Somalia is last on the list, which is often the case when comparing all the nations on anything. While the United States ranks fairly well on this list, it's far from the "greatest."<br />
<br />
Then there is the homicide rate for the United States. We come in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate">98th place for lowest homicide rate</a>, with 3.8 murders taking place per 100,000 people. The country with the highest homicide rate is Honduras, coming in 218th place with 84.3 murders per 100k people. There are 58 nations listed whose rate is below 2 people per 100k and 28 nations whose rate is below one person per 100k.<br />
<br />
When we look at homicides by firearms, the United States endures 29.7 firearm homicides per one million people, which is outrageously high when compared to other developed nations.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SN4z-u0HJsU/VrbnB5ZiR9I/AAAAAAAAFwI/LlA2WD2SKsY/s1600/gun%2Bhomicides%2Bdeveloped%2Bcountries.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="317" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SN4z-u0HJsU/VrbnB5ZiR9I/AAAAAAAAFwI/LlA2WD2SKsY/s400/gun%2Bhomicides%2Bdeveloped%2Bcountries.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><cite>Javier Zarracina/Vox</cite></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It becomes an especially stunning shock if one views the various figures Katie Leach-Kemon collected and published in her <a href="http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2015/10/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/">article on Humanosphere</a>. It's despairing when various U.S. cities have firearms homicide rates that match the high numbers of firearms homicide rates of such countries as Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Education</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The Pearson Index <a href="http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking">ranked the United States at 14</a> overall in the year 2014, which breaks down as 11th for cognitive skills and 20th for educational attainment. Nations like Japan, Canada, Denmark, and Germany, as well as nine others, all beat us. In the year of 2012 we ranked 17th. While our great USA's students are improving in math and science, <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-in-math-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/">we still rank 35th and 27th, respectively</a>, out of 64 countries, according to Pew Research Center.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<b>Employment and Vacation/Holidays</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
Employment rates are ever-changing, probably more than any other factor I've so far discussed, but in 2011 we suffered an <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/07/14/world.comparison.unemployment/index.html">unemployment rate of 9.2%</a>. According to the B<a href="http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm">ureau of Labor Statistics</a>, it was higher—at 9.8%—in 2010. Thankfully it's continued to go down, but as of 2015, according to the <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html">CIA Factbook</a>, we still possessed a rate of 5.2%, which is <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html">56th place out of 207 nations</a>. So much for being the greatest nation when 55 nations have higher employment rates for their citizens than we do.<br />
<br />
As far as vacation and holidays go, we live in the only developed nation that does not mandate, by law, that citizens receive paid time off. Nations in the European Union all require at least four weeks of paid vacation. According to a <i>U.S.A. Today</i> article, "Austria, which guarantees workers the most time off, has a legal minimum
of 22 paid vacation days and 13 paid holidays each year. The average
private sector U.S. worker receives 16 paid vacation days and holidays.
One in four Americans does not have a single paid day off" (<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/08/countries-most-vacation-days/2400193/">Hess, "On Holiday"</a>).</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Family Life and Happiness </b><br />
<br />
As if the subpar deal for vacation and holidays<b> </b>isn't bad enough, the U.S. also does not ensure its citizens receive paid leave when a child is born. It doesn't even give mothers more than twelve weeks of "protected leave," which is to say unpaid leave with a guarantee of being able to return to work at the end of that time. A nursing mother who works, if she manages to save enough back for her time at home, must return to work in roughly three months, which is far too early to have to leave a child with someone else, especially considering pumping in the workplace is not accommodated well in our nation. I should think <i>protected</i> leave should last at least six months, and pumping accommodations should be made after the mother returns to work. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vWWqWg2ZENM/VtJlwK1QT-I/AAAAAAAAFwk/LxIVQT_MoTE/s1600/parentalLeave.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vWWqWg2ZENM/VtJlwK1QT-I/AAAAAAAAFwk/LxIVQT_MoTE/s1600/parentalLeave.png" /></a></div>
<br />
The United States did not earn a spot in the top ten happiest countries in the world in the <a href="http://www.unsdsn.org/happiness">World Happiness Report</a> for 2015. I do not think it ever has. Of the happiest cities in the world, ranked just this year of 2016 by<a href="http://www.mercer.com/newsroom/western-european-cities-top-quality-of-living-ranking-mercer.html"> Mercer's Quality of Living Ranking</a>, the highest-ranked U.S. city came in at 28th place (San Francisco). </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Environmental Cleanliness </b><br />
<br />
We sadly cannot expect to place very well in this category due to all the neglectful climate-change-deniers and lazy citizens who don't give a shit about where their trash goes or what chemicals are unleashed into the environment. As a naturalist who highly appreciates this beautiful planet we call home, this subject provokes a lot of anger in me.<br />
<b> </b><br />
This<a href="http://ohtopten.com/top-10-cleanest-countries-world/"> top ten list of the cleanest nations in the world</a>, derived by researchers at Yale- and Columbia Universities, does not include the United States. As always, it includes some of the Scandinavian nations, as well as other nations, like Singapore and Switzerland, that often feature in the best lists concerning other categories.<br />
<br />
<b>Democratic Ranking</b><br />
<br />
Americans here like to brag about our government and hold it as superior above all other nations of the earth. While we do practice some good democratic socialistic practices in our nation, we fall short of being the best. We are well on our way to becoming an oligarchy ruled by the wealthy who would strip liberties and wealth from the nation's main populace, and the pseudo-Christians are assisting toward this direction. <br />
<b> </b><br />
Here is a screenshot from the <a href="http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf">BlankCAF Democracy Index for 2008</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mkdWW2aFYAI/VtJwxwKYHSI/AAAAAAAAFw0/nOHhx0rmuNs/s1600/democraticranking.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="404" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mkdWW2aFYAI/VtJwxwKYHSI/AAAAAAAAFw0/nOHhx0rmuNs/s640/democraticranking.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
I wondered how often whether that was updated and looked to see whether I could find an<a href="http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=EIU-Democracy-Index-2015.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=DemocracyIndex2015"> index for the year 2015</a>. Here it is, with the United States falling from the 18th in the democratic index to 20th:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c0r1GdbmWXY/VtJxL50l70I/AAAAAAAAFw4/U620EubmiDY/s1600/democraticranking2015.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="410" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c0r1GdbmWXY/VtJxL50l70I/AAAAAAAAFw4/U620EubmiDY/s640/democraticranking2015.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
A dear friend of mine who lives in my area is originally from Denmark, and so I was delighted to <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/11/1448606/-Living-with-Denmark-s-Democratic-Socialism">read an article </a>a few days ago about the democratic socialist government of Denmark, which I highly recommend. It was written by an American expat who has lived in Denmark since 1991.<br />
<br />
<b>Economic Freedom</b><br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking">2016 Index of Economic Freedom</a> by Heritage categorizes countries as free, mostly free, moderately free, mostly unfree, repressed, and unranked. There are five countries—Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Austria—who are ranked free. We are ranked in the "mostly free" category in 11th overall place. On the Heritage website, it says, "Economic freedom is a crucial component of liberty. It empowers people
to work, produce, consume, own, trade, and invest according to their
personal choices." We rank well, but we are not ranked #1 in economic freedom.<br />
<br />
<b>Children's Rights</b><br />
<br />
I own this wonderful book that I've read to my children. What is sad is that the United States is the only country, besides lawless, always-ranked-worst-on-everything Somalia, who has not signed on to the U.N.'s treaty on the rights of children. It is not only embarrassing, it's a terrible disgrace!<br />
<b> </b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U0Q_rSPZw_8/VtKH7Ka2OdI/AAAAAAAAFxM/51bRT-xGrqk/s1600/thischildeverychildbook.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U0Q_rSPZw_8/VtKH7Ka2OdI/AAAAAAAAFxM/51bRT-xGrqk/s320/thischildeverychildbook.JPG" width="240" /></a></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I remember hearing about a decade or so ago about this treaty on a popular national pseudo-Christian radio station and how they were strongly opposed to the U.S. ratifying this treaty. It's disgusting. The pseudo-Christians want to be able to hurt their children and to not allow them to believe in which religion they choose and so on. That is the real reason why the U.S. is alone with Somalia, of all countries, to not ratify this very important treaty that has improved the lives of children the world over. One of the ways in which many children's lives have been improved as a result of this treaty is bringing children out of poverty. How does the U.S. rank in child poverty?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Among the OECD countries, the U.S. ranked, as of 2010, 30th out of 34 nations! <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/21/why-wont-the-u-s-ratify-the-u-n-s-child-rights-treaty/">The "great" nation of the United States ranks 30th in child poverty</a>! Over 21 percent of U.S. children in 2010 lived in poverty. Chile, Turkey, Mexico, and Israel were the four that ranked worse than we did.<br />
<br />
<b>So, is there <i>anything</i> in which the United States ranks "the greatest" in?</b> It turns out that there are a few things we win at.<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Almost Most Generosity</b><br />
<br />
This is a good thing. We came in second last year on the <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/america-is-the-second-most-generous-country-in-the-world-2015-11-10">World Giving Index</a>, after Myanmar, but we <i>have</i> come in first before, and we've also tied for first place with Myanmar at least once previously. <br />
<br />
<b>Greatest Wealth (GDP)</b><br />
<br />
Aha! Finally we rank "greatest" in something, and that, my friends, is that <a href="http://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2015-data-and-charts">we top the charts in gross domestic product</a>. In other words, we produce the most and win the "wealthiest" title, even though we're in such deep debt that I'm not quite sure we can accurately be called the wealthiest once that's factored in. Now, according to something called purchasing power parity (PPP), <a href="http://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2015-data-and-charts">we rank number two</a> in GDP, following China in first place. Follow the link to learn more.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Greatest Number of Prisoners</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
Certainly not something about which to boast, I managed think of something else in which we rank number 1. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/30/does-the-united-states-really-have-five-percent-of-worlds-population-and-one-quarter-of-the-worlds-prisoners/">We lock up more of our fellow citizens</a> than any other nation in the world. Although the United States is home to only about 4.5 percent of the world's population, over one-fifth—nearly a quarter—of the entire world's prison population is locked away in prisons in our nation. This is astounding. We do not rank toward the top of safest nations, either, or lowest in crime. <a href="http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.522swAei.dpbs">Around a quarter of prisoners in the U.S. are imprisoned for drug offenses</a>, around half of those in federal prison, according to DrugWarFacts.Org. Not only should people not be locked up for drug abuse—they need help—but a large percentage of our population is made up of responsible users (not abusers) of illegal drugs. Most stats report anywhere from a quarter to a third of adults as users of cannabis, and I'm confident this is accurate. People from all walks of life are using cannabis. As for those with serious drug problems, especially those using dangerous drugs like methamphetamine and heroin, our country needs to get these people help and also ban and restrict some of the pharmaceutical drugs that people are becoming addicted to and leads them to heroin use.<br />
<br />
Being the biggest producer because we slave everyone to death in the name of celebrating mammon, setting aside vacation and holidays and family leave and using our wealth to look down on everyone else as if we are the best; and locking everyone up for using drugs and refusing to help those who are addicted does <i>not</i> make us the "greatest nation on earth."<br />
<br />
If <i>you</i> are one of the many who have believed this lie and feel that everyone else is inferior, it's time to swallow your pride. Our nation's people need to humble themselves and look to some of these other nations who have a lot of things figured out quite a bit better than we do. They are setting some good examples for us that we'd be wise to follow.<br />
<br /></div>
MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-19437299611219091732016-02-14T18:37:00.001-08:002016-02-14T18:37:55.451-08:00...but intelligent people believe in God<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y201QzDdzbg" width="480"></iframe>MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-55196059102344351642016-02-03T21:22:00.001-08:002017-04-18T18:46:40.484-07:00If I Was God...#3<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6tsnYy7EPDY/VrLgOY-YnWI/AAAAAAAAFvk/swoduRbp5PU/s1600/godseries2016.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6tsnYy7EPDY/VrLgOY-YnWI/AAAAAAAAFvk/swoduRbp5PU/s320/godseries2016.jpg" width="290" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
If I was God, I would not tempt my children to do evil. The biblical book of Genesis talks about a god or gods setting up a tempting tree called The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and instructing his/their newly-made human couple to not eat from it, else they'd face execution.<br />
<br />
Of course, the story is nonsense in so many ways, and I've already laid that out in depth in the following posts:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.truthsearching.com/2015/05/a-liar-and-murderer-from-beginning-plus.html">A Liar and Murderer From the Beginning</a><br />
<a href="http://www.truthsearching.com/2015/05/the-tree-story-is-impossible.html"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.truthsearching.com/2015/05/the-tree-story-is-impossible.html">The Tree Story is Impossible</a><br />
<a href="http://www.truthsearching.com/2015/05/the-tree-story-is-impossible-part-2.html"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.truthsearching.com/2015/05/the-tree-story-is-impossible-part-2.html">The Tree Story is Impossible: Part 2</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.truthsearching.com/2015/05/knowledge-of-good-and-evil-good-or-bad.html">Knowledge of Good and Evil: Good or Evil?</a><br />
<br />
But let's pretend the story is real. Let's pretend an advanced being created all living things on this planet and set up that tempting tree. Why did he set up a tree with that name? Why would he create a tree whose fruit would help you know right from wrong and then threaten to kill you if you ate from it?<br />
<br />
<b>But then let's go further and ask why any god would tempt any human or other animal to do something that he would exact punishment for if said human or animal gave into temptation.</b> <i>That</i> is the big question here. <br />
<br />
Many years ago, when my firstborn was an infant, I read a sample few pages online of a book entitled <i>To Train Up a Child</i> by Michael and Debi Pearl. I was quickly horrified by the contents. In the years since I've read other excerpts posted all over the Internet by others who have read the entire book and were also appalled. The book is basically a child abuse manual, but it uses the bible to justify the abuse. It's pretty crazy that some of us read the bible and came away with a stronger-than-ever desire to treat our children with gentleness and respect and to strive to guide our children the way Jesus would do so, and yet other people apparently have read the bible and think they need to act as fierce dictators, tyrannically and cruelly oppressing their children.<br />
<br />
Since I've read the Genesis story just as it is, though, as well as all the other horrible stories like God mind-fucking the Egyptian pharaoh, I understand. I see how these people get these ideas and justify them. Of course, I do believe that people who naturally want to teach lovingly and lead by example, like Jesus, are prone to grab ahold of those teachings for confirmation, whereas people who are naturally tyrannical are drawn to the twisted parts of the bible in order to confirm their desired methods.<br />
<br />
In the aforementioned book, the authors spoke of deliberately enticing infants with pretty objects and then hitting them after the infant grabbed the items. It also discusses horrors unrelated to temptations, like pushing a child in a pond to teach them not to play near it, making a child touch a hot surface to teach them they can be burned, and pulling a little four-month-old infant's hair when he or she bites during nursing when their teething gums hurt!<br />
<br />
If I don't want my children doing something, I try to get them not to do it. I sure as hell do not deliberately entice them to do something I truly do not want them to do! What in the world?! Who has ever heard of such an insane concept?!<br />
<br />
When I tempt, I <i>want</i> the person to do something. That is what tempting is all about. If a parent is tempting a child in a case in which the end goal is to punish that child, the parent is a sick individual and not fit to parent.<br />
<br />
If I was God, I would not tempt my creation to do what I deemed as evil and worthy of death.<br />
<br />
This has been #3 in the "If I Was God..." series at TruthSearching.com.
MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-5286987788082436832016-01-30T22:45:00.000-08:002017-04-18T18:47:02.758-07:00Ridiculous Statements From Trump SupportersThe top thing I am sick of hearing about Donald Trump is that he "tells it like it is" or "tells the truth." These are <i>very common</i> statements from his supporters. Of course, what it really means is that he is not afraid to say what's on his hateful mind and that he speaks even lies like he believes them as truth.<br />
<br />
There's something else I'm really fed up hearing from Trump supporters, though. I keep hearing, "He can't be bought." "Trump is the only one who can't be bought."<br />
<br />
Wow! Ok people, let's think about this. First of all, in case you didn't realize, Donald Trump is a billionaire. A <i>billionaire</i>. With a 'b.' (If he really is.) In his own words, he's so very rich. Does he not keep reminding us that he's filthy rich?! So when people say something like, "People can't buy off Trump," I can't help but think, "Are you stupid?" Bribes appeal much more to those who don't have billions of dollars. Trump doesn't need more money, so he probably couldn't care less. However, he gets away with all the hateful shit he spews out of his mouth because he's rich and because there are plenty of hateful-minded people to loyally support him.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders isn't being bought off by anyone. He's only receiving small donations from individuals. He can speak loudly against the wealthy and corrupt corporations who are pretty much buying our government because he's not being paid by them. Not a penny!<br />
<br />
Then there are people who share how much they admire Trump for being so successful. Oh yes, well it does make it a lot easier when one's father leaves him with a large inheritance to invest. Any of us can do that. He hasn't done any better than any of the rest of us would have if we'd have inherited the same and invested it. I like how <a href="https://www.quora.com/Did-Donald-Trump-inherit-a-lot-of-money-and-then-increase-his-net-worth-at-an-unremarkable-rate">this guy explains it</a>. He's got people with intelligence to run his companies for him. That's a big help as well.<br />
<br />
Once again, if we look at Bernie Sanders, we see that his level of success, in comparison, is worthy of admiration and appreciation. He's <i>far</i> from being a billionaire, but <a href="https://youtu.be/lxFWL5P53R8">he had immigrant parents and lived in poverty growing up</a>, and he's become a U.S. senator and is running for president. He's come a long a way. To see him talk about that during the Democratic Town Hall was very moving for me.<br />
<br />
Enough with the ridiculous statements about the hateful billionaire buffoon!<br />
<br />MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-5053762872375345762016-01-30T22:10:00.000-08:002016-01-30T22:13:01.962-08:00Terminating Life and Donating "Baby Parts"Shortly after the huge scandal carried out by <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/planned-parenthood-activists-indicted/">deceitful fraudsters David Daleiden and Sandra Merrit </a>who obtained fake ids, recorded employees from Planned Parenthood, then deceptively edited the videos to make it appear that Planned Parenthood profited from selling fetal body parts, something dawned on me. Of course, I initially was shocked and hoped that it wasn't true. I watched some clips myself and then looked into the matter and found that it was only referring to the fees paid for storage, handling and shipping the human organs to the researchers. Everything was done legally. <br />
<br />
However, I have many very right-winged individuals on my Facebook list, and varying persons were posting hateful things toward Planned Parenthood and one of the women—medical services director Deborah Nucatola—in a video Daleiden produced. This is exactly what the two fraudsters hoped would happen. I suspected something was up very early on, though, because the prices discussed in the video I watched were quite low—$100 at the very most—for human body part sales. That is what prompted me to look further into the matter.<br />
<br />
The reality is that some of the women getting abortions in the second trimester (sometimes to save her own life or show mercy on her child; sometimes not) choose to donate the organs to science. It's legal, and Planned Parenthood does not profit. They only charge the storage, handling and shipping fee.<br />
<br />
Even after these facts came to life, a lot of the extreme anti-abortion people still believe Planned Parenthood is in the wrong. They keep saying, even now, that Planned Parenthood is murdering babies and selling baby parts. <br />
<br />
<b>Then I experienced my stunning revelation. In those people's eyes I must be a monster. In 2005, I chose to terminate life support for my precious second-born infant son who was in a persistent vegetative state, quite nearly completely brain dead, as he could not even draw more than one breath on his own. In addition, my husband and I were asked whether we wanted to donate his organs, if they were eligible. </b> We both agreed that we wanted to donate his organs. It turned out that he was ineligible. This is probably because the cause of his state was unknown, and an autopsy was required by law. It may also have been due to the fact that he went so long without ample oxygen that his organs were not as good as someone who was injured in a car accident and more quickly was put on life support. Regardless, we had wanted to donate his organs for a greater good. In that case, his organs would have been donated to other people who needed organs for long-term life. In the case of aborted fetal tissue, researchers have worked with those stem cells to try to find cures for diseases in order to enhance afflicted persons' quality of life. They've also been used in the production of some vaccines.<br />
<br />
If we'd have been able to donate Asher's organs, the hospital would have received fees for the work of the transplant team's harvesting the organs, storing them, and shipping them to where they were needed. The people needing the organs would have paid the fees. Would that have made Children's Mercy Hospital an evil entity who ends infants' lives and sells their "baby parts?" Get real.<br />
<br />
It's really true, though, that some of those same extremist people demonize those of us who have had to deal with tough issues surrounding life support of a loved one. <b>These are people who either don't have all the facts or ignore them, or these are people who simply love to stick to their "pro-life" law in its letter while ignoring the greater spirit of the law of life. They look over mercy, compassion, and life quality in order to keep the letter. </b> They'd rather see a fetus or an infant suffer out their hours or days or weeks or months in an extremely sick and/or disabled condition just to say they supported life (in the letter) or "left it to God" (a monster?) than to show mercy and compassion by cutting the child's misery short. They do the same thing for elderly people or people of any age who are on life support but have no quality of life, who do not even know what's going on around them or who are suffering unimaginable pain that the strongest drugs no longer ease. I saw such people speak their minds concerning the young woman <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjoramxp9PKAhUFND4KHcqdC6YQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2014%2F10%2F07%2Fopinion%2Fmaynard-assisted-suicide-cancer-dignity%2F&usg=AFQjCNGi8MZxawIOeX4HZ3xwlPfOLDIH9Q&sig2=Is7qFR2NEpSdC2UO4l51iQ">Brittany Maynard</a>, who suffered with a deadly brain tumor and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjoramxp9PKAhUFND4KHcqdC6YQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2014%2F10%2F07%2Fopinion%2Fmaynard-assisted-suicide-cancer-dignity%2F&usg=AFQjCNGi8MZxawIOeX4HZ3xwlPfOLDIH9Q&sig2=Is7qFR2NEpSdC2UO4l51iQ">chose to end her life</a> with legally assisted-suicide drugs when the pain became too great. This horrified me. How was it Godly to condemn Brittany to more suffering with the same end result? How is that following the law Jesus spoke of that was so important, the one of loving your neighbor and showing mercy and compassion?<br />
<br />
Jesus pointed out that some people basically say, "Fuck mercy. This violates the pro-life law." But Jesus said they violate the <i>weightier</i> matters of the law, such as mercy, justice, and faithfulness (Matt. 23:23). The spirit of the law is more important than the letter. Those who are always stuck on some letter are not being guided by mercy and compassion inside themselves. Their hearts aren't bleeding with empathy and crying out with compassion.<br />
<br />
<b>People who cling to a law in its letter often breed all sorts of ugliness. They fail to recognize gray areas in life. They lack the capacity to weigh moral and ethical decisions, which leads to their acting out in evil ways and believing they did what was good. </b><br />
<br />
And as for the women who chose to abort several weeks into the second trimester for other than saving one's own life or to prevent the baby from future suffering due to defects, it's none of our business. I do <i>not</i> like what some women abort for that late in the game. I would not abort that late unless it was for an extreme reason. A lot of others would not do so, either. I didn't write this to debate the "right" and "wrong" reasons women abort at that stage, but I did so because some people think that <i>any</i> reason is wrong and that it's absolutely wrong to donate the organs and other fetal tissue to science. <br />
<br />
<b>Now these people want to defund Planned Parenthood, declaring they are guilty of that of which they have officially been declared innocent. This is a total outrage, not only because PP is innocent of the charges of selling baby parts, but the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwje25_orNPKAhULFj4KHYdrBKcQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fundabortionnow.org%2Flearn%2Fhyde&usg=AFQjCNEL_nkNp7y9AfiBrckHGr5cOXFINQ&sig2=1OxFaj1UxBfMBqDiAvW-MA">Hyde Amendment was signed into federal law in 1976</a>, which already prohibits the federal funds given to the nonprofit Planned Parenthood for being used for abortion. </b> There are strict exceptions to this; Medicaid will cover abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life or health of the mother. In the vast majority of cases, if a person has Medicaid, he or she must pay out-of-pocket for an abortion just like everyone else. They do try to help a woman get some financial assistance for an abortion, if your income is low, but if the person applies and qualifies, those funds come from private donations. Only<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/"> 3% of PP's services are abortion services</a>, while most of the services consist of STD testing, cancer screenings, and contraceptives. They also provide other services, like PAP smears for women, vasectomies for men, and sonograms for pregnant women. So <b>defunding Planned Parenthood would not affect the number of abortions women get. The only thing it would do is make it difficult for women (and men) of low and moderate incomes to obtain the low-cost healthcare services that this nonprofit organization provides to millions of people each year. </b><br />
<br />
Please stop lying about Planned Parenthood, and stop condemning people for the serious decisions they make regarding life and death and for donating organs. <br />
<br />MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-91819818547949721322016-01-27T15:41:00.000-08:002017-04-18T18:45:42.838-07:00America's Right Wing is AntichristI've pretty well always hated extreme right-wing ideas. I hated them as a Christian, and I hate them presently as an atheist. <br />
<br />
There were two articles I wrote several years ago, as a Christian, that I want to briefly mention. One pointed out the error of a person being <a href="http://www.geocities.ws/etcogarchive/articles/rightnorleft.html">too extreme either to the right or to the left</a>. The other discussed the fact that <a href="http://www.geocities.ws/etcogarchive/articles/moralabsolutes.html">there are not always moral absolutes</a>, as many self-proclaimed Christians like to insist. I've grown and learned quite a bit in those six-plus years, so there would definitely be some improvements to those articles if I was to revise them. Overall, though, I understood the dangers and evils of being an extremist and knew that those who claim that there are always moral absolutes do not follow a loving-heart-led moral code, but rather they stick to a rigid "letter of the law" mentality, therefore keeping the applicable written or oral law while breaking the higher law of mercy, justice, and faithfulness, just as the Jesus of the bible is purported to have said (Matt. 23:23-24).<br />
<br />
In the United States we are gearing up for a presidential election, and as always, my husband and I have been watching the debates of both parties before the primary election. I always find myself getting so angry and disgusted when watching the Republican debates. I loathe the fact that they even name their party "Republican," for it totally takes away from my ability to proudly say that I am a republican—with a little 'r'—who supports the idea of a democratic republic as a form of government. I enjoyed watching Ron Paul eight years ago, as he was the only person running on the Republican ticket who was worth voting for. I was so happy to hear him that I went against my then-religious beliefs of voting and voted for him in the primary! I didn't vote again after that, though my husband did vote for Obama in the general election. I didn't love Obama at the time, but I will say that I was relieved that he did beat war-loving John McCain.<br />
<br />
Unlike the Republican debates this go-around, the democratic debates are worth watching. They tend to talk more about issues that matter a lot more, as they are able. It seems they are not allowed to say much about climate change issues (the most important issue of all, in my strong opinion), because the questions they get do not include that topic. But when they do manage to fit it in, it's pleasing to hear that some really want to do something about it, unlike the Republicans who will mock the fact we have a serious emergency and simply do not give a shit about doing anything about it.<br />
<br />
We've been watching the debates over the last few months, and the Republicans only want to talk about how they want us to murder and destroy, to bulk up our military, to be the strongest warriors in the world, as if we are dominating dictators planning to force our will upon everyone else. When they're not talking about that, they are literally bickering at each other like immature children. It's extremely embarrassing, and I find myself wondering each time what citizens of other nations must be thinking if they watch it.<br />
<br />
In contrast, there is no childish bickering in the democratic debates. There may be some disagreements, since it is a debate, but they're respectful of each other and do not bicker back and forth, back and forth. They debate the issues and point out their differences in opinion without disgraceful name-calling.<br />
<br />
I thought the far right-wingers were evil-minded when I was a Christian, and nothing has changed. It's despicable how they claim to be the "Christian" party, and yet they are nothing but anti-Christ. They do not even know the Jesus of the bible, the most well-known believed-to-be Jewish "christ" or "messiah." They certainly do not have his words written on their hearts; if they're programmed into their minds, it's only in a thoughtless memorization sort of way, not in any serious processing of what the words mean and accepting them as good and wise. <br />
<br />
I disliked Marco Rubio from the very beginning. In the very first debate we watched last year, he made it clear that he did not think abortion should even be allowed to save the life of a woman. The act of imagining that as a reality for even a second gripped me with a feeling of fear and strong defense for my right to life. Yet I'd be willing to bet he considers himself "pro-life." Those people do not even know what pro-life means. One thing is certain; he's very anti-abortion, even when abortion is the only way anyone is going to continue living. I've known at least two women of whom I'm aware had their pregnancies terminated when their embryos were growing in one of their Fallopian tubes. I've read numerous real-life stories of women who made the very difficult choice to terminate their second-trimester pregnancies, even those just a mere two weeks from viability, in order to not lose their own lives (and naturally also those of the fetuses). The stories are very sad. There are several reasons why a woman would need to abort to save her own life, including hemorrhage, pre-eclampsia that threatens a fatal stroke, or severe hyperemesis gravidarum for just a few examples. I think most people are at least in support of abortion in life or death cases. I once considered myself fairly anti-abortion, but I always held that a pro-life decision should be made if a woman's life was in danger—save her life by terminating the pregnancy. Ending one life to save another is better than knowingly letting two lives end.<br />
<br />
Marco Rubio looked as if he was possessed by a demon, if such were really a thing, during President Obama's last State of the Union address. I'd thought if there was really a wicked being called Satan, maybe he was sitting there, going by the name of Marco. The only thing his eyes and facial features manifested was pure hate. How a person could sit there with a hateful expression and evil-flashing eyes when Obama said all the good things he did is beyond my comprehension.<br />
<br />
I won't even bother talking in depth about Rick Santorum, as I was disgusted that he even ran again; I hated listening to the man the last time he ran. Why anyone would even consider desiring such a person to preside over our nation boggles my mind. I'm glad we didn't have to watch him, nor Mike Huckabee, for very long this time. I could go on and on about Santorum alone.<br />
<br />
Ted Cruz isn't a lot better than Santorum.<br />
<br />
Then there's the woman who doesn't hide her personality as a bitch, Carly Fiorina. I'm not sure whether she ever smiles sincerely about anything good. It's been beyond annoying to listen to her repeat endlessly that we need to "take back our country," whatever that means, while she bobbles her head constantly.<br />
<br />
Ben Carson seems like he'd be a real likable individual, to me, just to be able to talk to and get along with, and I love his calm, gentle voice, but he's definitely not president material. I dislike some of his policy ideas, for sure. (Update: I no longer care for Ben Carson much. He ruined his reputation by joining Trump's Cabinet.)<br />
<br />
Jeb Bush actually has had a few worthy ideas, like pointing out to the rest of the foolish Republicans that it's asinine to think we can just deport eleven million Mexicans back to Mexico and proposing a fair way for those adults who came over to pay back coming here without going through the legal process. I don't want to see Jeb as the president either, but if I had to vote for one of the running Republicans, he would be my choice over the others.<br />
<br />
Rand Paul is a disappointment. I like his father, but Rand falls severely short. It disgusted me to hear him discount climate change, and I've heard him talk about other things that caused me to shake his head. He's better than most of them, in my opinion, but he's infected with a lot of the "conservative" ideals. (The party is not conservative with going to war, not conservative of the environment, and not conservative with government spending, as war is at the top of government spending.) I will at least say for Rand that he has seemed to adopt his father's foreign policy ideals, more or less, which earns him my respect as far as that is concerned.<br />
<br />
Chris Christie I mostly dislike. He actually said a few sensible things, but I don't even remember what they were. However, I do remember one very idiotic thing he said. He figured we should shoot down Russian aircraft if they fly in a U.S.-demanded "no-fly-zone" in Syria. Well, who are we to impose a no-fly zone in another nation? Who appointed us as world king dictator? I don't remember which one, two, or three candidates followed him up in that particular debate and slammed Christie on his stupidity, but I'm glad for it. We certainly do not need anyone presiding over our nation who would exercise such poor judgment as that.<br />
<br />
John Kasich, I thought at first, was ok. I got to thinking that he was quite a bit different than the others. He seemed to be independent in his thinking. But then as more debates occurred, and he said more, I started to really dislike a lot of what he was saying. Then there's the fact that he has habitually rambled on and on, even when he's been told his time was up.<br />
<br />
Then there's Donald Trump. Trump has really brought out in the open those who are haters in their hearts. If they hated secretly before, they are not afraid to express that hate in the open now. I shake my head sadly at the state of the "Bible Belt," which is, ironically, the most antichrist section of the nation. I will soon write in detail with plenty of factual evidence to elaborate on this statement, in another post. Donald Trump started out as ridiculous entertainment, but he quickly entered the realm of seriously dangerous behavior. This billionaire who incites hatred has numerous very loyal followers, which eerily reminds me of Hitler's uprising and others like it. I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a Muslim right now. He wants to ban all Muslims—even U.S. citizens who are away visiting or serving in the military—from the U.S. until things are supposedly sorted out with Islam, and he wants every member of Islam to be identified and tracked.<br />
<br />
What does it take to get these nutcases to understand that most Muslims are not violent terrorists, just as most Christians are not violent terrorists, despite the fact that some are? Why do the Republicans only focus on "radical Islamic terrorists" but do not even so much as mention "radical Christian terrorists?" Why was Dylan Roof's shooting up African Americans in their peaceful church service not discussed, nor Robert Dear's massacre of innocent individuals in a Planned Parenthood clinic? A quick Google search will reveal that radical Christian terrorists have killed more people, and have carried out more attacks, in the U.S. since 9/11 than Islamic terrorists. There have also been so many mass gun shootings, but the Republicans lie and will have you believe the government wants to ban all guns, when the truth is that we can simply make it more difficult for violent or mentally ill people to gain access to guns, which would reduce violence and deaths. It seems it's not terrorism or deaths that these candidates and their followers are against, but rather people who are Muslim instead of Christian. If all Muslims are automatically evil and dangerous because a small minority are violent terrorists, then all Christians must be automatically the same because of their violent terrorizing minority. These people lack logic! They also lack compassion and fair judgment. Besides all this, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/16/muslims-hate-isis-most-of-all.html">most of the victims </a>in the world who are injured, murdered, or otherwise victimized by Islamic terrorists are Muslims! Chew on that. <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/16/muslims-hate-isis-most-of-all.html">Muslims also hate Islamic terrorists</a> more than anyone else, which ought to make fine logical sense. Christians don't want to be misrepresented by Christian terrorists, and atheists don't want a bad reputation when an atheist carries out an act of terrorism. <br />
<br />
If Jesus was alive and present in the world, he would not be impressed one bit by any of what is going on in the right-wing circus these clowns are running. He would reject his name being used by these bearers of bad fruit. He would say things like, "You don't even know me" (Matt. 7:23) and "You people give me lip service while dealing wickedly in your hearts and actions" (Matt. 15:8).<br />
<br />
There is no talk of trying to care for the environmental disaster that is going to lead to more and more death and destruction to various species, including us, and ecosystems. These people are not discussing how they can help people out of poverty and provide them a better education which leads to better parenting and reduced crime. They're not talking about how they can put a stop to corporate bribes (since they're the ones taking the bribes) to government officials to protect evil corporate interests. They're not considering how they can pass a law to make the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. They're not deliberating on how they can ban cruel horrors like factory-farming. They clearly do not give any care to encourage growth in clean technology. They're not demanding the end of private prisons that encourage more arrests of people who don't need to be locked up so that these people can get richer. They're not putting an end to the insane "war on drugs" and making moves to decriminalize cannabis and get drug-addicted people help instead of locking them up. They are not demanding that pharmaceutical companies make their lifesaving drugs affordable to those who need them. They're not fighting for parents to get a fair family leave package after the birth of a child. They are not bothered that our healthcare system is embarrassing when compared to those of other developed nations, with citizens spending outrageous amounts of money for much worse results. They certainly are not making any moves to be the number-one peacemaking country on the planet.<br />
<br />
In other words, they don't care about the same things Jesus cared about—helping the poor, the care of the planet, the healing of the sick, generosity, grace, compassion, kind treatment of animals, and peacemaking, among others.<br />
<br />
The better portion of America's right-wing, in other words, is anti-Christ.<br />
<br />MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-27782438403238675262015-12-12T23:37:00.001-08:002023-01-08T11:02:32.541-08:00A Year as an Atheist: The Fruit Thereof<span style="color: red;">Note: I had written most of this in August of this year, but then I became so busy that I had to put off finishing it until now, so I've technically been an atheist now for nearly a year and a half.</span> <br />
<br />
Last year, on July 19, I published a post on my old "Growing in Grace and Knowledge" blog where I came out publicly as an apostate from my Christian religion. I <a href="http://www.truthsearching.com/2015/05/my-exodus-in-genesis-beginning-of-dogma.html">reposted it here</a> on this blog. It's not written as chronologically well as it could have been, but I wrote it the way it came out. I may edit it for its inclusion in my book that will detail my journey from childhood to my current state. <br />
<br />
When I came out to say that I no longer believed the bible to be the word of god, I initially still believed in a god. That lasted maybe two weeks before I realized that it didn't make much sense for a god to create all this and not care. I realized I believed there really wasn't likely a god at all. I had barely even looked into evolution before my apostasy. It bore absolutely <i>no weight</i> on why I stopped believing the bible to be true. I soon started studying biological evolution thoroughly, and my beliefs were confirmed substantially more. Based on what I know now, if there <i>is</i> a god that created everything here, he did a very shoddy job, and he also enjoys bloodbaths and other horrors in having set up the whole predator-prey/parasite-host/disease-host system. Just the way the vas deferens is hooked up in the human male and the way the laryngeal nerve is hooked up in the giraffe, when compared to animals all the way down to a fish, is enough for me to call bullshit on the whole idea of a creator. I'd never known those things. <br />
<br />
I want to lay out in this post how my first year as an atheist has gone. What fruit has it borne? Has it been bad fruit or good? What is my stance a year after leaving religion behind? <br />
<br />
Since the good fruit far outweighs any bad, I'll start with the bad and then move on to the good.<br />
<br />
<b>Being Shunned (Bad)</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SEXu5brz2ik/VcuKXYU8I6I/AAAAAAAAFP4/pSkmqGHZ6oA/s1600/256px-sin-clipart-A_Black_and_White_Cartoon_Man_Shunning_Sin_Royalty_Free_Clipart_Picture_100704-231354-508053.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SEXu5brz2ik/VcuKXYU8I6I/AAAAAAAAFP4/pSkmqGHZ6oA/s1600/256px-sin-clipart-A_Black_and_White_Cartoon_Man_Shunning_Sin_Royalty_Free_Clipart_Picture_100704-231354-508053.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Source: <a href="http://images.clipartpanda.com/">Clip Art Panda</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
There were only two negative effects that came of my apostasy, and both have faded into near oblivion. The first bad experience was the loss of some friends due to their cultic and unbiblical practice of shunning. Not all of my friends did this. Some of them followed the biblical approach of no longer partaking in Christian fellowship with me but still conversing with me and carrying on friendships. This spoke volumes of each of the individuals, depending upon which category into which they fell. <br />
<br />
It was very traumatic to be treated in such a way. I figured one of my best friends would likely react that way at first, due to her volatile personality, but would then get her act together, but so far that has not happened. Maybe some day it will. My other best friend shocked me and hurt me more than any other. She's the only one I've cried over multiple times in the past year. I love her, and I am so disappointed in the way she cut me off; I think about her and her family often. She said to me that she loved me and my family, but then she saw my post. It is so hurtful that her love turned out not only to be conditional on my belief in the bible as the word of god, but that my family also lost her love and care. How can love just be dropped in an instant like that, especially toward children that don't have anything to do with their mother's choice? I count it as a bad thing. I really thought we'd be lifelong friends. Then there was a friend for whom I gradually lost more and more respect over the years, and after my apostasy all respect was lost. He acted in a most shameful way, totally ignoring biblical teaching and common decency, which drove me to great anger. I entered battle mode. You pull that kind of shit, you're asking for it. He even said he had no choice but to "hand [me] over to Satan." In those people's minds, Satan is a horrible individual that will cause your life to be living hell. So, in other words, he was wanting evil to befall me. But indeed, looking at his history and how he believed in dealing with people he believed to be enemies, he is just a man of revenge, far from how Jesus would have acted.<br />
<br />
If it wasn't so depressing, angering, and shameful on their part, it would be humorous that I, as an atheist for a year, am far more Christian (the meaning here being a follower of Jesus' good teachings) than those who shunned me. Their hypocrisy in failing to act Jesus-like toward me would be amusing if it wasn't so sad. Not only did they shut off their moral conscience—the wisdom voice inside that makes life easier for those who listen to it—but they clearly flunked out on the passages in the Christian testament that teach how to treat someone who has either strayed and sinned or become an unbeliever.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: left;">
My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, <span class="reftext"></span>let
him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save
his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins (James 5:19-20, ESV)</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
This verse set was the one of two that kept reverberating through my mind as I was assaulted by those I once called friends. Was I the only one among the bunch who had this verse written on my heart? I was waiting for one of them to act the proper way, but none of them did. That is how I tallied their love value for me. I came away feeling very unloved. I must not have meant very much to any of them. There was another friend my two good aforementioned friends (and others) and I shared on a forums community of mine who walked away from the bible and all religion a few years ago (she disappeared at some point from the Internet, and she lives in another state), and to my knowledge I'm the <i>only one</i> who continued to talk to her. I would give updates to the rest of the group. She and I would share email conversations. We stayed on friendly terms until she disappeared. We had some conversation where I tried helping her sort through things, where I tried bringing her back to belief. But when she said she simply could not (and she shared with me reasons why), I was compassionate about it and told her I understood and that I didn't fear for her salvation. I believed that if she was truly confused and tried to do good in her life, then our Father God would have mercy on her and show her the truth at her resurrection. She had told me that she hoped I was right. I chose to remain on friendly terms with her and did so until I never heard from her again.<br />
<br />
<i>I lived it.</i> I brought all the love within me to that religion. I saw love in the bible. I clung to the loving verses therein. I did it all the right way and couldn't imagine having done it any other way. I could not have imagined treating that very sweet-spirited person like crap and shunning her. When you've got true love in your heart, and you believe that you have a father god who is full of love, then you want nothing more than to share that with the other person and for him or her to not miss out on all the blessings. If I'd have shunned her, what hope would there have been of her coming back and even wanting to come back, unless another loving person would have kept a relationship with her?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XQL9lvcxQpY/Vm0c1ozkWUI/AAAAAAAAFt8/DKVo-AIqe_c/s1600/fruit2.gif" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="218" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XQL9lvcxQpY/Vm0c1ozkWUI/AAAAAAAAFt8/DKVo-AIqe_c/s400/fruit2.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Source: <a href="http://www.gospelgifs.com/art_pages_16/good_fruit_109.htm">Gospel Clip Art</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The other main verses that my mind kept hearing were:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="woc">“If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.</span>
<span class="woc">And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.</span><span class="reftext"></span><span class="woc">And
if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is
that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.</span>
<span class="woc">But
love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return,
and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High,
for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.</span> <span class="woc">Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:32-36, ESV, also see Matt. 5:46...).</span></blockquote>
See, I had all these good sayings "written on my heart" (file-saved into my mind), so my brain kept accessing them like an alarm was going off. I knew what those persons were doing was evil and hypocritical, and so it was very traumatic to me. All the time wasted...<br />
<br />
Some other verses:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are
spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on
yourself, lest you too be tempted (Gal. 6:1).<span class="p"><br /></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special
note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be
put to shame. <span class="reftext"></span><i>Yet</i> do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thess. 3:14-15). </blockquote>
The one in Thessalonians applied to the instructions in that particular letter, and it simply says take note of the person, cut out their church association, but continue to admonish him as a brother, not an enemy. There is no admonishing going on when you shun someone. Disfellowshipping a person from church and shunning them to where you don't talk to them at all, anymore, are two very different things. <br />
<br />
1 Corinthians 5 also deals with a man who was engaging in sex with his dad's wife. It doesn't say he wasn't a believer. He was doing something most of us would think of as very bad. He was supposed to be expelled from church association, too. However, it says nothing of conversing or continuing a friendship with that person, if you had it, <i>outside of the church association</i>. How else would a person expect there to be hope for the person to return? <br />
<br />
2 John 1:10 deals with an individual Christian household that held church. Instruction was given not to allow a false teacher into the association to teach, nor to give them the Christian greeting common at that time. It has nothing to do with not talking at all, outside of church gatherings, with a person who differs in teaching, nor giving a common greeting.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="woc">“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his
fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained
your brother.</span> <span class="reftext"></span><span class="woc">But
if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that
every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three
witnesses.</span> <span class="reftext"></span><span class="woc">If
he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses
to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax
collector (Matt. 18:15-17).</span></blockquote>
<br />
We all know that Jesus was compassionate and friendly toward those of other nations and that he engaged in friendly conversations with tax collectors. He cared about them and hoped to turn them to a good way of life. He obviously would not have associated with them in the synagogue. There would have been no Godly fellowship. But there would be normal conversation about other things in everyday life. <br />
<br />
Logic and kindness were totally absent from the way I was treated. It did add a scar to my life's mental wounds. And even if I had not gone on to totally disbelieve in a god (which isn't the same as emphatically saying there isn't one, because no one knows, and that's the only honest stance), what possibly would have caused me to want to return to a walk in Christian traditions? Certainly not those individuals! Such behavior leaves a bad taste in the mouth, a sick feeling in the stomach. <br />
<br />
<b>Fear of Death (Bad)</b><br />
<br />
It wasn't long after I ceased believing in a god that we woke up in the middle of the night to discover it was badly storming. My husband rushed to see whether our router and modem would work so that he could check the weather. I remember shooting straight up in the bed and whisper-shouting, "Father! Please protect us." It was out of habit. The memory of there not being a god immediately flooded to me, and I was filled with sheer terror. It was awful. I felt so terribly helpless. I got up to pee, and I was just hoping so badly that we didn't get a tornado or that a tree didn't fall on the house. I had always been relaxed before, fully believing that my Loving Father above would protect us from any evil (but perhaps not others who would be killed by a tornado, and all the while millions of children were starving or being beaten or dying from a malicious disease). I'm not sure why I always felt protected before. In truth I'd also suffered from anxiety and fear for years, ever since I'd lost my second-born son. I'd begged for him to live, but he did not. But for some reason, I thought my god wouldn't bring such evil upon me again, so I was faithful that we'd be protected.<br />
<br />
My Love gently reminded me, when I expressed my fear, that it had always been that way, in reality. We had never had a god protecting us. I knew he was right, but it was hard to get used to at first. Just the false belief gave a certain sense of trust that we'd be ok during storms and vehicle rides.<br />
<br />
In time this fear faded to such a point that I'm overall less fearful of bad things happening now than I was when I believed in a god, because there were often fears that I'd be punished whenever I did something I felt was wrong. It's really opened my eyes to how much the god I'd served was a tyrant whom I fooled myself into believing was a god of love, grace, and longsuffering.<br />
<br />
<b>Gratitude (Good)</b><br />
<br />
I had always been a very grateful person. I always tried to focus on the positive side of things and spent most of my "prayer" time throughout the day thanking my god for how wonderful my life was and grateful for when good befell others. I found myself grateful for the smallest things. But since my leaving religion and ceasing to have a belief in god, my gratitude has increased exponentially. I'm alive, I've made it this far, I'm doing well, I've got wonderful people in my life. I'm surrounded by beauty and knowledge. I'm very aware that this life is likely all there is, and I'm grateful that I've had a really good one so far. I've suffered immensely painful experiences during my life's journey, but overall it's been really good.<br />
<br />
I mourn <i>more</i> for those who don't have it so well than I did back when I believed they'd get another life, but I'm more appreciative for what I have got. I want to make sure I make the most of this life by finding joy and bringing joy to others. I've always lived with that goal in mind, but my drive is stronger now. I'm no longer holding out in faith for false promises of a better life to come. I'm no longer wasting my time preparing myself and others for what will never come. I'm making the best of what I <i>do</i>.<br />
<br />
I am just as sad as I was before my apostasy at the thought of losing loved ones or other bad things happening, but for the most part, I do deal with this better now than before. I believe it's because I try all the more to live <i>in the present</i> and enjoy everything to the fullest. I let time slow down as I'm cherishing moments with my children, with my husband, with friends, in nature, eating food I enjoy, etc. <br />
<b> </b><br />
Finally, I'm grateful for the fact that I figured this out when I did in my early 30s. Sure, some people get it figured out in their teens or twenties, but I'm grateful that I didn't waste away my 30s, 40s, or yet more decades before discovering that I've been living by myths. That way, if I live that long, I can better enjoy more time, knowing this is the only life I'm guaranteed.<br />
<br />
<b>Better Marriage and Mother-Child Relationships (Good)</b><br />
<br />
My marriage relationship was already the best that I knew, and so many had marveled at how well we got along and loved each other, even during the years when we didn't share the same beliefs. My husband had always been so respectful of my beliefs after he stopped believing them. He more or less kept the Sabbath and holidays with us. He didn't insist we keep holidays I didn't want to keep. He didn't eat biblically "unclean" foods. I also respected him, though, in not wanting to engage in bible reading and such. We stayed up late every night talking, making love, or watching documentaries or comedy, or whatever. We were always best friends. But now it's even better, because we are even more on the same page, once again.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>
I was almost a perfect mother for my first six years of parenting, and then for a variety of reasons, I went downhill in some ways. The ideas of rewards and punishments that I derived from the bible poisoned my good parenting. I adopted some of those ways in parenting my children, though it didn't take long for me to see the error. However, it was hard to get away from. I'm now doing so much better again. I know my kids don't have to be perfect. They don't need to earn my love. I was being like god to them, as I understood he was to me.<b> </b>I thought I had understood God so well by reading all about his losing his temper at disobedient people and then repenting later, because I had experienced it. It bothered me, deep inside, though, that I was supposedly in need of salvation because of my failure to be perfect and lose my temper, and yet God could do the same thing and also feel guilty, and yet he wasn't in need of salvation. That was something that had been bothering me more and more as time went on.<br />
<br />
I don't believe I'm going to reunite with my children in another life, so this is all I've got. I want, all the more, to make the best of it. As I mentioned before, I really focus on certain moments, just letting myself enjoy them to the fullest, living in the moment.<br />
<br />
<b>Friends (Good)</b><br />
<br />
I still have good Christian friends, and I also have atheist friends. It's great! One of my Christian friends from before, who believed as I did, is now an atheist. That's the best part.<b> </b> <br />
<br />
<b>More Learning and Growth (Good)</b><br />
<br />
<b> </b>I'd always valued learning and growth before, but this aspect is another in my life that has seen an increase. I question things even more and dig even deeper. I have researched and read about more varied topics and have really enjoyed what I've learned.<br />
<br />
<b>More Empathy Toward Others</b> <b>and Less Judgemental</b> <b>(Good)</b><br />
<br />
<b> </b>I couldn't understand how all the Christians couldn't obviously see that they were walking in false religion. Why weren't they real Christians who rejected pagan holidays, the trinity, and an ever-burning hell, among other doctrines? (Or why would God truly blind them from seeing the truth?) Now I can better put myself in their shoes. I was at least partly guilty, too. I'm sure I was viewed just as duped by atheists as I viewed mainstream Christians, because I did not study deeply enough or think deeply enough.<br />
<br />
I feel even more compassion on those in the world suffering, too. It's the realization that if there was really a god, then it/he/she is deeply wicked for letting millions of children starve or suffer from cancer or child abuse, yet blessing some with the trivial things for which they prayed. It has gone on for thousands and thousands of years. If any of us had the power to end all the suffering, we would do so and think it would be evil not to do so, so why is it that any of us would justify God's not doing anything?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2SygMBZQFQ4/VmzkNKSIXDI/AAAAAAAAFts/uqK0QxIaUWk/s1600/dressvsstarve.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2SygMBZQFQ4/VmzkNKSIXDI/AAAAAAAAFts/uqK0QxIaUWk/s400/dressvsstarve.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Source: <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/pin/161988917823967884/">Pinterest-Kerry Souza</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>More Proactive in Helping Others (Good)</b><br />
<br />
My husband and I have always helped others in whatever way we could. We've always been popular ones for others to come to for advice. We've given thousands of dollars each year to people who need financial help. We've given to charities and to individuals and families. Nathan has stopped to help numerous people on the side of the road. I've taken time out to help people figure things out or to offer encouragement. I've recycled what I can for over twelve years and do other things to help our environment. Most of the Christians I knew before didn't even tithe, but most Christians who do tithe, tithe to their churches, anyway, and give considerably less money to those in need. We tithed nearly all our money directly to those in need. Not only do we still help people financially and give advice and help people in other ways, I spend much more time now than before in signing petitions and answering people's questions on question and answer sites, to make a real difference in people's lives. I sign a few petitions <i>every day</i>. They range anywhere from helping endangered animals, education for children, to punish abuse, to gain human rights, and so much more. <br />
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>And More...</b><br />
<br />
There is so much good that has come about in my life since leaving religion behind. There is one more bad aspect that I didn't talk about, and that is the fact that atheists are looked upon as the most untrustworthy and evil individuals, but there is no evidence whatsoever that atheists deserve this stigma. There are good people and evil people in every religious group and non-religious group. There <i>is</i> evidence, though, that religion has caused much more harm to the world than atheism, as a whole. In upcoming posts, this will be illustrated. <br />
<b> </b><br />
Overall, my life and the lives of others have drastically improved since I've become an atheist.</div>
MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-7968125310276471222015-07-24T13:11:00.000-07:002015-07-24T13:11:58.177-07:00Cornerstones and Human SacrificeLast year I wrote about <a href="http://www.truthsearching.com/2015/05/yahweh-loved-human-sacrifices-my-bible.html">human sacrifice in the bible</a> and how the Israelite's war god Yahweh (one of many Canaanite gods in the pantheon underneath El) was portrayed as being appeased by said sacrifices. <br />
<br />
Among other examples, I wrote about something called foundation sacrifice, which was practiced in many ancient cultures, including ancient Israel. Joshua spoke an oath in Yahweh's name that if anyone rebuilt Jericho again, that man must do it at the cost of his firstborn for the foundation and his last born to be laid at the gates. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="reg">
Joshua laid an oath on them at that time, saying, “Cursed before the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> be the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho.</div>
<div class="line-group">
<span class="ln-group">“At the cost of his firstborn shall he</span><br /><span class="indent">lay its foundation,</span><br /><span class="br-ln-group-10">and at the cost of his youngest son</span><br /><span class="indent">shall he set up its gates" </span><span class="indent">(Josh. 6:26-27).</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The first book of Kings later records that Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho in Jewish King Ahab's day:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho. He laid its foundation at the
cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his
youngest son Segub, according to the word of the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span>, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun<i> </i>(1 Kings 16:34) </blockquote>
<br />
You can Google "foundation sacrifice" and visit Google Images to see what it is and read Wikipedia. Ancient tribes and nations would kill a person for a sacrifice to their god and place the person at the foundation of a wall or building. It was believed that they would receive that god's protection over that building or city beyond the gates and walls and that the sacrifice would ward off enemy spirits. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LOR79Q0f16U/VbKag5vaNBI/AAAAAAAAFOY/S94DPGB91W0/s1600/foundation-clipart-cornerstone.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LOR79Q0f16U/VbKag5vaNBI/AAAAAAAAFOY/S94DPGB91W0/s1600/foundation-clipart-cornerstone.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://clipartpanda.com/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">clipartpanda.com</span></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Today I was revisiting this topic and came to realize that the "cornerstone" so often mentioned in the bible texts, such as Jesus being the cornerstone, is where sacrificed human bodies would be laid. That makes Jesus' death as the way Paul portrayed it (a human sacrifice) all the more sickening, because he is the supposed cornerstone of a figurative building of which Christians are supposed to be a part. At least being a "living sacrifice," as is mentioned in the Christian texts is better than being slaughtered and lain down as part of a building. <br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I started searching "cornerstone" as it pertains to human sacrifice and found <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8671195/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/archaeologists-uncover-rare-child-sacrifice/#.VbKKHkVxHu0">this article about a child's body archaeologists found in Mexico</a> back in 2005.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Archaeologists digging through an Aztec temple say they’ve
found a <b>rare child sacrifice to the war god, a deity normally honored
with the hearts or skulls of adult warriors</b>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
The child found at Mexico City’s Templo Mayor ruins was apparently
killed sometime around 1450, in a sort of <b>grim cornerstone ceremony
intended to dedicate a new layer of building</b>, according to archaeologist
Ximena Chavez (Source: <i><a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8671195/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/archaeologists-uncover-rare-child-sacrifice/#.VbKKHkVxHu0">Child Sacrifice</a></i>, bold added).</blockquote>
<br />
The article goes on to say that it's the first child archaeologists have found that was sacrificed to Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec war god. Normally captive warriors from opposing tribes were the ones sacrificed to the war god. <br />
<br />
We know from the books of the bible, though, that there's at least one more example (at least written as such) of possible child sacrifice to a war god. We don't know how old Hiel's children were; they could have been adults. Perhaps the case of the child in Mexico was similar to the case recorded in the book of Joshua. Perhaps that city had been defeated and was put under a similar curse so that a new builder in the future was expected to offer up their child as the cornerstone to the war god Huitzilopochtli that they believed helped them win their victory of that city.<br />
<br />
There were also heave offerings, remember, to Yahweh, that came from war spoils. Animals and persons were burned in sacrifice to Yahweh. Yahweh liked burned virgins (young women). There are ones recorded as having been required for sacrifice to him in Num. 31:25-41. Could these virgins include those of ages we'd consider as "children?"<br />
<br />
It's truly sad when we look back on human history. We still have a lot of improvement to do, if we do not soon become extinct from doing what we've done to our planet, but we have also come a long way. We've not rid ourselves of war, yet. However, I'm glad to see that there aren't huge sacrifices of hundreds of animals and people being burned up in honor of a god.<br />
<br />
I'm also happy that the only ceremonial cornerstones we use today are stones with engravings of dates of construction and the architect, builder, and/or other important persons (Source: <i>Wikipedia, s.v. "cornerstone"). </i>MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-23144936513979089802015-07-23T16:18:00.000-07:002015-07-23T22:46:09.078-07:00Does the Christian Testament Teach Breeding Quiverfull?It has exasperated me for many years that the "Quiverfull"-minded folks claim that Christians are either expected to actively breed and produce as many children as they can before the woman hits menopause or that they should more passively allow themselves to produce as many children with which the women find themselves pregnant, with absolutely no prevention or contraception at all, <i>ever</i>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DIspEXmA7ws/Vaw5VmMHISI/AAAAAAAAFOA/5lXYErrkoGI/s1600/oldwomn.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DIspEXmA7ws/Vaw5VmMHISI/AAAAAAAAFOA/5lXYErrkoGI/s320/oldwomn.gif" width="284" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://discoveryschool.com/"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Clip art licensed from the Clip Art Gallery on DiscoverySchool.com</span></a></div>
<br />
Not only is this irresponsible ideal <i>not </i>in the books of the Christian testament, the truth is very much the opposite. The writers of the books and letters that came to be known as the Christian testament highly discouraged marrying, if you weren't already married, much less encouraging a large or super large family. In addition, a Christian who didn't provide for his family was considered more worthless than an unbeliever (as if someone who refuses to believe in something he's told without evidence is worthless). <br />
<br />
Unlike the command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply and repopulate the earth, Jesus, who is recorded as saying all authority in heaven was given to him, commanded Christians to teach all nations and baptize them in order to conceive the god spirit/seed/sperm into them.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"</i>Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age<i>.”</i> (Matt. 28:19-20 ESV) </blockquote>
<br />
A Christian was supposed to reproduce spiritual children. It wasn't supposed to matter whether each Christian baptized others, just so long as they did their part so that people who were taught by them were eventually baptized and were conceived as a new creature with the god sperm that came out of the baptizer's fingertips and infused into the skin of the baptizee. (See I Cor. 3:6-9)<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it (Matt. 19:10-12 ESV).</blockquote>
<br />
The Mosaic law has an un-Christian ordinance of prohibiting a eunuch or any male who had a genital injury to enter into God's assembly (though eunuchs were accepted later by Isaiah with the evolution of morality--Isa. 56:3).<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD" (Deut. 23:1 ESV).<span class="p"><br /></span></blockquote>
<br />
Jesus didn't really dig the command in Deuteronomy. Jesus explained the different ways a man could be a eunuch, whether by being born a hermaphrodite or otherwise deformed or effeminate from birth or having one's testicles cut off or by simply making oneself not desire sex. Those who chose castration (or otherwise masturbation) so that they could focus on building God's kingdom rather than a marital relationship were seen as a doing a worthy thing by Jesus.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (I Cor. 7:1-5 ESV)</blockquote>
<br />
Paul referred to our natural biological urges to engage in sex as "temptation to sexual immorality," and so he preferred for a man or woman to marry if they desired sex. Periodic abstinence was encouraged so that time could be used for working toward God's kingdom (which, if timed well, could also prevent conceiving children who would take more time away from work on building God's kingdom), but it was warned that the couple should not abstain too long, or the biological urges (or Satan's temptations, in Paul's eyes) would be so much that they might find themselves giving into casual sex with others. In verse 6, Paul stated that he wished all would be like he was in not marrying, but:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion (vs. 9).</blockquote>
<br />
It should be clear by now that the <i>preferred</i> state of a Christian that is serious about building God's kingdom, by spending their time they would otherwise be investing in marital and child-rearing duties, is <i>not</i> to marry and to <i>not</i> reproduce more human beings who will also have to be given the kingdom message in hopes that they will accept it and join as adults. It takes many years, though, and a lot of time, to bring children up to adults, and there's a very good chance those grown children won't jump on the bandwagon.<br />
<br />
All these verses speak of marriage for reasons of engaging in sex to sate the natural sexual desire in a Christian-approved manner. None of the verses have absolutely anything to do with reproduction. Many early Christians did adopt orphaned children, but there is nothing in the Christian testament to encourage reproducing new persons. The only reproduction of new persons that was promoted was to recruit persons who were already in existence to believe Paul's message and to receive conception from the sperm of God, transferred via the fingers of an already-begotten son of god into the bodies of the recruited persons.<br />
<br />
<b>There are absolutely no instructions to compete in a Breed-a-Thon in the Christian testament! Sex for pleasure to sate sexual desire is the <i>only</i> reason Christian marriage was promoted. Period. </b><br />
<br />
Now, if there were already children born to the couples when they converted to Paul's religion, or if the couple decided they wanted children (because the desire to produce children is another natural desire), there were instructions to follow in order to best bring up their children. Parents were instructed to gently teach their children and not provoke them to anger and were expected to teach their children how to conduct themselves as decent citizens. Just as there was no prohibition to marry, there was no prohibition to produce children.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (I Tim. 5:8 ESV).</blockquote>
<br />
Though the context was that of taking care of widows, one's children are a Christian's relatives and usually members of his or her household. With the exception of famous or otherwise somewhat well-known Quiverfull families, most children in Quiverfull/Patriarchal households suffer from poverty. They often do not eat well, are often undereducated, and often fail to receive needed medical care. They also are usually not provided with adequate personal attention and affection.<br />
<br />
This is where Quiverfull enthusiasts and fanatics will point to verses in the Jewish bible ("old testament") to back up their case. Let's have a look, starting with the verses they base their whole movement name upon.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="block-indent"><span class="ln-group">Behold, children are a heritage from the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span>,</span><br /><span class="indent">the fruit of the womb a reward.</span><br />
<span class="reftext"></span><span class="ln-group">Like arrows in the hand of a warrior</span><br /><span class="indent">are the children<span class="footnote"></span> of one’s youth.</span><br />
<span class="reftext"></span><span class="ln-group">Blessed is the man</span><br /><span class="indent">who fills his quiver with them!</span><br /><span class="br-ln-group">He shall not be put to shame</span><br /><span class="indent">when he speaks with his enemies in the gate (Psalm 127:3-5 ESV).</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<i>Blessed</i> or <i>happy</i> is the man, according to this psalm, who stocks up on kids like a warrior does arrows (or ammunition in this day and age). What else do the psalms say about what makes a man happy or blessed?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="block-indent"><span class="ln-group">Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones</span><br /><span class="indent">and dashes them against the rock (Psalm 137:9 ESV)!</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
The context is that of the Jews in Babylonian captivity, and the infants or little children who shall make a man blessed (or "happy," if you use the KJV) if he bashes them against rocks until they die are the little Babylonian children. Does anyone imagine that the Jews wanted to take German babies and bust their heads open on stones after the second world war? Are we to think that Christians today want to take Muslim babies and hurl them with great force upon rocks, causing their deaths due to blunt trauma?<br />
<br />
If we are to be consistent with the biblical psalms and agree that all the words are God-inspired, holy, just, and good, then how come I don't hear any of the Christians today making every effort to kill infants and young children of their enemies (real or imagined) by dashing them upon stones? Do they feel that maybe the 137th psalm is a lie, that they wouldn't truly feel happy or blessed to carry that out? What makes them so intent on believing the 127th psalm? Based on many months of carefully researching and reading stories from numerous Quiverfull escapees (both women and grown children), reading psychological literature, hearing firsthand from an escapee whose mother I knew and clearly suffered from several problems, the Quiverfull families' "blessings" and "happiness" isn't what it's all cracked up to be.<br />
<br />
With that being said, I'm sure it's closer to a blessing than beating children upon rocks until they die. The <i>point</i> is that one should never, ever base a whole belief system upon one verse or set of verses.<br />
<br />
Another verse is Genesis 1:28, the command for Adam and Eve (who are fictional characters, in truth) to "be fruitful and multiply and repopulate the earth." I'd say we're more than re-populated now. We meet all the conditions of overpopulation of a species. To apply a command meant for two people on an empty earth to today's overpopulated conditions is folly to the hundredth power.<br />
<br />
Then there's the supposed opposition of God against contraception, since he struck down Onan (Gen. 38:8-10) for pulling out and spilling his seed on the ground. Even though the account in the book of Jasher records God killing Er before his brother Onan for the same deed, it clearly states in Genesis that Onan's motivation for not impregnating Tamar was that he knew the child would not be considered his, but Er's, because they believed in that day that a man should take his dead brother's wife to raise children up for him. It had nothing to do with the choice not to have children at all. There is no statute in the Torah that states one must agree to produce children. It was seen as a blessing that a man have at least one son to carry on his name. Clearly, though, there were infertile couples. What is the difference in infertile couples who wish they could have children and fertile couples who wish not to have children? If God is in charge, what kind of game is that? Why not make infertile the ones who don't want any children? <br />
<br />
It is a <i>choice</i> for people to reproduce children, but that choice carries with it <i>responsibility</i>. There is <i>no</i> <i>command</i> for Christians to breed without limit. Christians, if they are to be good representatives of what they supposedly represent, ought to practice responsibility, love, compassion, and fairness. These things are sadly absent from most who identify with "quiverfull."<br />
<br />
There are very few women in the bible who had numerous children. Mary, the mother of Jesus, either had seven or so or just one (if the other children were the elderly Joseph's from a previous marriage). Job's wife had either ten or twenty, supposing Job gained his second set of ten children with the same wife. There were maybe a couple more mentioned that had more than seven. Leah had seven. The bible doesn't state how many Eve birthed. Most of the women mentioned in the bible did not have more than five to seven children, many having fewer or none. Men typically had more children than women did, because they took more than one wife, if they could afford it. We now live in a society where birthing numerous children doesn't make good sense. One to five seems to be plenty.<br />
<br />
I was looked down upon by certain fellow Christians because I didn't subscribe to the Quiverfull mindset. But who is the one following principles more in-line with the Christian testament, allowing parents to spend quality time with each child, financially support each child well, and be able to work toward the Christian goal of God's Kingdom? (Note: The last point is something I no longer do.)<br />
<br />
The whole basis of their movement is with the mindset of out-breeding their enemies. Maybe it won't be long before they take the next step in killing the children of their enemies by breaking their bodies on boulders. Will that make them doubly happy and blessed?MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-6256705842858766842015-05-30T14:04:00.000-07:002015-06-22T14:28:44.920-07:00Is Josh Duggar the Biggest to Blame in Sexual Molestation of Young Girls?Most people have now heard about Josh Duggar from TLC's reality tv show, <i>19 Kids and Counting</i>. It came out that he was guilty as a teen of molesting at least five young girls, some of whom were his sisters. Though he was indeed guilty and should not have been engaging in that behavior, I think people are focusing too much on Josh and not enough on his parents and their lifestyle, which they share with many other extreme "fundamentalist" and evangelical Christians. It's called the Quiverfull movement or sometimes, Christian Patriarchy.<br />
<br />
Sibling sexual abuse is so much more common in the large Quiverfull/Patriarchal families, as is physical and emotional abuse. I've read many stories by individuals that have escaped that life. I also have a personal friend who escaped such a home. I was friends with her mother in previous years and had noticed several red flags over those same years. It was clear to me that having so many children, because she thought that was what she was supposed to do, was ruining her health and finances, but every time I tried gently warning her against continuing on, she brushed me off. Now that her oldest daughter is free—she's also a fellow atheist—many more revelations have come to light, including sexual abuse. Though I had not suspected the sexual abuse, I did suspect a lot of other things but did not have ample evidence.<br />
<br />
Children who grow up in such over-sized families usually must raise their younger siblings, if they are all homeschooled, and there is no way the mother can properly educate that many children of that many different ages, keep a house clean, and adequately keep an eye on all of her children. When you add in the fact that those in such families are not given any sort of sex education, and perfectly normal things like masturbation are condemned, it's no wonder sibling sexual abuse has occurred often in those environments. Sometimes the father sexually abuses a child. Other times young women are simply sexually harassed or fondled by male authority figures in the various "ministries" the Quiverfull families follow (like Bill Gothard).<br />
<br />
My friend wasn't even allowed to access the Internet when she was underage! My oldest son got his first iPod (and has since gotten an iPad mini and then a laptop computer) when he was nine and has used the Internet a lot for research and gaming. There is a porn blocker and a tracker so that I can check anything that was flagged, but other than that he's got freedom, and he's a very avid reader and researcher and enjoys educational Youtube videos as well. As for sex education, I started my oldest at the age of two with a children's book called <i>Where Willy Went</i>, which is a cute story of a sperm winning a swimming race and a baby girl being born. It even shows an illustrated picture of the parents underneath bed covers. I've always been open with my kids about sex and have answered their questions in age-appropriate ways (which isn't the same viewpoint of "age appropriate" among fundamentalist and evangelical Christians). <br />
<br />
TLC has cancelled the <i>19 Kids and Counting</i> television show, but there was talk beforehand of just firing Josh. That really bothered me, because even though he should have known not to commit sexual acts against his sisters at the age of 14, I really believe the Duggar patriarch and his wife should be closely examined. There's way more to this than their teen son molesting his sisters and another young girl. <br />
<br />
One great example of this is their following of the sick book, <i>To Train Up a Child</i> by Michael and Debi Pearl. It's basically a child abuse instruction guide and is popular among the Quiverfull/Patriarchy families. I was either pregnant with my firstborn, or he was an infant, when I stumbled upon the book in a free online format, or maybe it was a preview of a limited number of pages. Either way, I only read a few pages and stopped, because I was so appalled people could teach others to treat children that way. What is more appalling, of course, is that thousands of parents who read that sadistic book actually do not recoil in horror but think it's a good idea, and so they follow its instructions! There are actually those out there who believe that it's ok to deliberately entice an infant to touch an item you don't want touched, and then hit them when they do, and to deliberately touch your child's hand to a hot stove to teach the child it's not a good idea to touch a hot stove, and to push your child into a pond to teach the child you shouldn't play near a pond, and that you should beat a child for acting unhappy and also for crying after a beating. The implement they recommend parents use for hitting their children is a flexible plumbing line. My friend and her younger siblings were all beat with such an implement, because she followed the Pearls' teaching.<br />
<br />
Debi Pearl even says you should yank your infant's hair when he or she bites during breastfeeding at around four months. Is she ignorant? Does she honestly think the child has evil intentions? When teeth are growing through a person's gums, it hurts to suck. Biting down temporarily relieves the pain. Perhaps a little compassion should be shown. How about reacting normally, like we would in any other circumstance when something hurts us, by crying out and removing the offender (in this case, unlatching the baby from the breast for a few moments)? How about kissing the baby's head and relatching him or her? If the baby is biting too much, he or she may need to chew on a frozen washcloth or other frozen or cold item or even have some numbing agent applied to his or her gums. This is what a loving and compassionate mother does for a four-month-old baby who is biting during a nursing session. Maybe Debi Pearl and all the other ignorant women out there who subscribe to her ignorant and evil teachings would do well to take a child development class and/or thoroughly read a good pediatrics book. <br />
<br />
Obviously this kind of behavior toward one's children has nothing to do with a Christian upbringing, if one is aiming to bring up a child in "new covenant" theology, the underlying point of which is to plant seeds in a child's mind that will grow into an inner desire to do what is good and beneficial for him- herself and other beings, because of that very fact alone, namely that they want to do what is good and beneficial, because they see that it brings forth good fruit and helps everyone be healthy and happy. The sadistic Pearl method does the exact opposite by training children to do things authority figures teach them to do out of fear of punishment. If a child is not strong-willed, then he or she will eventually always be compliant, but it won't be because the child has been taught and shown that good actions help everyone. It will be because the child lives under tyranny and is fearful. That is not the kind of human being I want to bring up to adulthood. That does not produce adults who will take the time to meditate on important decisions and develop moral and ethical judgments. It produces adults who will not question authority and will obey, regardless of whether it is moral or immoral to do so.<br />
<br />
Such children do not learn anything about gray areas in life, either. Everything is taught to them as strictly black and white. They are taught extreme right-wing biases, the results often of which break the spirit of the law of love and goodness in order to keep some flawed letter of the law. Such people ought to read the first thirteen verses of the 23rd chapter of The Gospel According to Matthew, as well as Romans 7:6 and all the verses even in the law of Moses that warned against not going to either the right or to the left to do what is wrong. Extreme right-wingers are guilty of exactly that; they go in the extreme to the right to do evil, trying to get everyone to strictly follow their religious beliefs according to the letter they believe.<br />
<br />
There are many witnesses that claim the Duggars used to promote the Pearls' sadistic child abuse manual on their website but took it down after their show gained popularity, even though they are said to still promote the other Pearl books. I did see screenshot evidence of the Pearls promoting a book by the Duggars on their Facebook page, referring to the Duggars as their "good friends." I also have read women claiming to remember that Michelle Duggar was on a mothering board with them on which she recommended a specific kind of flexible ruler to use for hitting infants that tried crawling off their blankets. One woman said she got the screenshot before it was quickly removed after the show's airing, but she didn't want to post it, because it would expose others who had posted who might have since changed their actions (though I'm not sure why she doesn't just use a program to black out the names). <br />
<br />
The "blanket training," as it's called, is another teaching followed among these circles. You are to use a spoon or other instrument to hit your infant's hand if he or she tries crawling off his or her blanket. This is to train the child to be still for a certain length of time in order for the mother to get things done. We live in a time of playpens, so there is no excuse for this evil. I've had elderly friends say that back in their time, before playpens, it was common for a mother to dress the baby in an adult shirt and place a big rock on the shirttail to keep the baby from wandering, if someone was not holding the child or carrying him or her in a sling. Hitting an infant is inexcusable in all circumstances. It's cruel and also kills normal development in a child who is naturally curious. <br />
<br />
Links to the above-mentioned screenshots and other evidence will be posted at the end, along with a link to the police report that was taken when police were finally notified of Josh's molesting young girls. It recorded one of the sister victim's saying that they were all "spanked" with a "rod" when they were in trouble. <br />
<br />
When I was a Christian, the last decade of it—nearly my entire adult life until I went apostate—was spent as a Sabbath-and-biblical-holidays-keeping Christian, and I despised all the mainstream beliefs and practices and strongly hated "fundamentalist" teachings. For only the shortest time in my early adulthood did I listen to things such as AFR (radio station of the American Family Association). I quickly tired of not only the many annoying musicians and songs (though some were good) but also all the focus going into support of war (which I believe is very unchristrian), anti-abortion (which they called being "pro-life" all the while being so pro-war), and homosexuals and the banning or preventing of homosexual marriage. They always took a short semi-break during the month of December to push the ignorant "put Christ back into Christmas" nonsense and wanting tax dollars to pay for nativity scenes. There was one thing I was suckered into temporarily. For a short time, I must admit that by listening to Ken Ham's <i>Answers in Genesis</i> creationist program that aired and by buying and reading some of the books pushed by that organization, I bought into the young earth teaching that includes the dinosaurs living with Adam and Eve, etc. That lasted about three years.<br />
<br />
I really came to hate American Family Association and its radio stations and thought the president and his son were hateful and ignorant individuals. Fox News was something we watched for a little over a year when we subscribed to satellite television, and I grew tired of Bill O'Reilly's yelling and interrupting his guests and Sean Hannity's obnoxious attitude. I lost what little respect I had left for Sean Hannity when I heard him say that he supported torture during interrogations of suspected terrorists. <br />
<br />
Those are the types of programs thousands, if not millions, of "Christians" listen to and support. It's sickening. However, the people in the Quiverfull movement go much further. Most Christians out there don't hit infants, deliberately set their kids up for failure in order to punish them, hit them for outwardly expressing a lack of joy, birth so many children that they cannot properly afford to care for them, and get their oldest child(ren) to rear the younger ones and do most of the housework. This is the kind of life the Duggars and other Quiverfull families live out. They desire to take over their "enemies" by outbreeding them. It scares me to imagine these fruitcakes taking over the government and establishing their religion, which is something which the Constitution specifically stated the government should not be allowed to do but that the "Christian" religious extremists in this nation want very much to do.<br />
<br />
Even when I was a Christian I was mightily opposed to the extreme earth-hating, war-loving, hateful right-wing "Christians" taking over and forcing their brand of Christianity upon everyone. That's exactly what happened to bring in the Dark Ages in Europe. They shut down the schools of higher education, mandated adherence to Roman Catholicism, and conducted religious services in a "sacred language" that the laymen could not understand, as well as printed bibles in the "sacred" Latin language so that the common people could not read it themselves (and usually could not afford a bible, anyway). <br />
<br />
Is this really the kind of lifestyle we want to support? Are these things truly "family-friendly values?" What you see on television isn't the full story. Remember, it's a television show. It's all for show. For an example of what really happens behind-the-scenes, <a href="http://radaronline.com/photos/duggar-reality-fakery-19-kids-and-counting-family-stages-charity-scene/photo/1044142/">read this article</a> about <a href="http://radaronline.com/photos/duggar-reality-fakery-19-kids-and-counting-family-stages-charity-scene/photo/1044142/">Duggar fakery</a> that went down just recently, about a thirty-five or forty-minute drive from my home.<br />
<br />
I am hoping to soon write up a post that totally sinks the foolish idea that the bible teaches Christians they should breed like rabbits. The people who subscribe to that belief are dead wrong. <br />
<br />
In the meantime, be sure to check all the links.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://gawker.com/quiverfull-of-shit-a-guide-to-the-duggars-scary-brand-1706557073">Quiverfull of Shit: a Guide to the Duggars' Scary Brand of Christianity</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.chicagonow.com/running-with-a-book-cart/2011/11/are-the-duggars-guilty-of-child-abuse/">Are the Duggars Guilty of Child Abuse? </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/04/30/the-duggars-promote-bill-gothard-and-the-pearls/">Duggars Believe in Pearls' Teachings and Promote Bill Gothard </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20141020015305/http://www.duggarfamily.com/content/amazon_blitz">Duggars Support Pearls</a> (Find the nogreaterjoy.org ad)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.floridanewstime.com/regional/105876-i-acted-inexcusably-josh-duggar-breaks-silence-about-molesting-young-girls-when-he-was-a-teen-as-his-parents-claim-the-scandal-drew-the-family-closer-to-god.html">The Police Report on Josh Duggar </a>(inserted within article)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Blogs of Quiverfull Daughter Survivors </b><br />
<br />
<u> </u><br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/permissiontolive">Permission to Live</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/">Love, Joy, Feminism</a>MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-64120445148565538892015-05-29T15:00:00.006-07:002015-05-31T16:12:05.440-07:00A Liar and Murderer From the Beginning (Plus Some Bonus)Jesus supposedly said:<br />
<br />
<span class="woc"><i>You are of your father the devil, and your will is to
do your father’s desires. <b>He was a murderer from the beginning</b>, and does
not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies,
he speaks out of his own character,<b> for he is a liar and the father of
lies</b></i> (John 8:44).</span><br />
<span class="woc"><br /></span>
<span class="woc">Whoever this "devil" is was said to be both a murderer
from the beginning and a liar. Let's go back to the beginning to
identify who murdered from the beginning and is a liar and father of
lies.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="woc">It is generally thought
by most that the serpent in the Garden of Eden story in Genesis is the
devil and/or Satan. It is thought that he deceived Eve into eating the
fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:</span><br />
<br />
<span class="woc"><i>Then the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “T<b>he serpent deceived me</b>, and I ate"</i> (Gen. 3:13). </span><br />
<br />
But
let's investigate to see how it all really went down. The Elohim
supposedly created the garden, mankind, and all the trees and such, and
then what happened?<br />
<br />
<i>And the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of <b>the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, <u>for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die</u></b><u>"</u></i> (Gen. 2:16-17).<br />
<br />
Now enter the serpent. Let's see what he said:<br />
<br />
<i>[The serpent] said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but
God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the
midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” B<b>ut the serpent said to the woman, “<u>You will not surely die.</u> For God knows that when you eat of it <u>your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil </u></b></i>(Gen. 3:1b-5).<br />
<br />
Okay,
so we've got the Elohim saying if the two humans eat from that tree,
they'll die in the day they eat it. Then we've got the serpent saying
they won't die but rather they'll be as gods, knowing good and evil.<br />
<br />
So now we need to see what really happened to see which was telling the truth and which was lying:<br />
<br />
They ate of the tree, they didn't die, and:<br />
<br />
<i>Then the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> <b>God said, “Behold, the
man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. </b>Now, lest he
reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live
forever </i>(Gen. 3:22).<br />
<br />
Well, it's pretty clear-cut as
to who told the truth and who lied. The serpent told the truth. God
had simply lied to them, told them they'd die in hopes that it would
make them afraid to eat from the tree. He really knew that they'd
become like gods like the Elohim and know good and evil.<br />
<br />
The
Elohim is like those lying parents out there who say some monster is
going to get them if they don't stay in bed or say other lying threats,
because they're not mature enough to tell their kids the truth and deal
with having to explain why they really want them in the bed.<br />
<br />
The
serpent is like another adult, who upon asking whether the kid's
parents really told her that monsters would get her if she got out of
bed, informed the child of the truth, that really the child's parents
didn't want the child to be up knowing what adults like to talk about or
do after the children are in bed.<br />
<br />
The Elohim is the
furious parent(s) who curses the other adult for daring to tell
his/their children the truth because they weren't good enough parents to
tell the truth themselves. They weren't mature and honest enough to
simply say, "You are a child and need to get some sleep. We like to
spend time alone as adults for awhile, because that is our right. We
love you and will see you in the morning for another wonderful day
together." It's sad that there are parents out there who frighten
their poor children by making up stories of monsters that could get
them. It's even more sad—sick actually— that a parent would tell a child if he finds
out something, he or she will die for it.<br />
<br />
If it wasn't a
good time for Adam and Eve to know certain things (like what their
sexual organs are for and that they should be covered, as Adam and Eve
certainly seemed to immediately know upon eating the knowledge fruit), then the Elohim should have
simply told the truth and said that he would lovingly teach them things
when the right times came.<br />
<br />
Of course the whole
nakedness thing and what their sexual organs are for and that they might
ought to cover them in front of the Elohim (lest he get a hard-on for
Eve like he did for Mary) is nonsense, anyway, because he/they had
already told them to be fruitful and multiply. Duh... Surely they knew
how to do it, and if they didn't, I'm sure they'd clue in real quickly
by seeing the animals do it. It doesn't take eating fruit from a tree.
All of my children have gathered the knowledge on sex and reproduction
from early ages. My firstborn was five and laughing about our rooster
"making sex" with the hens and calling beetles that were seen everywhere
"sex beetles," because they were seen everywhere mating. He'd seen
things like that for years. He'd seen baby animals. He'd had baby
brothers and had listened to me read a children's book on how babies are
made. When my children ask questions, they get honest answers. The
answers at the age of three are different than that of seven or those of
ten or eleven, but they get honest answers.<br />
<br />
If the
story in Genesis is true, then the Elohim are pathetic parental
figures. There are plenty of human beings who soar high above their
competence levels. <br />
<br />
Eve must have been frightened
standing in front of the god. The tone of voice from the god must have
been horrible and frightening for Eve to have responded the way she did,
that the serpent deceived her, because the fact bears out that he
wasn't the one who deceived anyone.<br />
<br />
It's stupid on the
Elohim's part for Adam and Eve to not know they were naked, if he/they
expected them to reproduce as he'd commanded. What an incompetent
idiot!<br />
<br />
<b>Who put this story together, anyway??? It's
really sad that we're brainwashed from childhood to believe one way so
that we don't see what's really written there. If we toss away the lies
that we're told we must believe, it becomes clear when we read the
bible that there is a <i>lot</i> wrong. </b><br />
<br />
There are
some apologists out there who say the death curse the god(s) warned of
didn't really mean they'd drop dead that day but rather that they'd
eventually die, but of course that argument really falls apart for two
reasons:<br />
<br />
1.<i> <span class="block-indent"><span class="ln-group">By the sweat of your face</span><br /><span class="indent">you shall eat bread,</span><br /><span class="br-ln-group-10">till you return to the ground,</span><br /><span class="indent">for out of it you were taken;</span><br /><span class="br-ln-group-10">for you are dust,</span><br /><span class="indent">and to dust you shall return </span></span></i><span class="block-indent"><span class="indent">(Gen. 3:19).</span></span><br />
<span class="block-indent"><span class="indent"><br /></span></span>
<span class="block-indent"><span class="indent">They were made with flesh bodies from the beginning, so from the beginning it was planned that they would eventually die. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="block-indent"><span class="indent">2. The only way to live "forever" was to eat from the tree of life:</span></span><br />
<br />
<i>Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever </i>(Gen. 3:22b).<br />
<br />
If
by eating from the knowledge tree they'd lost eternal life, then what
was the point of the life tree, if they were designed to live forever in
the first place? And also if they lost the chance for eternal life
simply by eating the knowledge tree, then why should Elohim also not
die, since the Elohim know good and evil? <b>If that's a sin, who are they to say it's not a sin for them but is for us? Parents are to set examples for their children.</b>
It would also be very unjust since many other people who have lived
have deliberately chosen evil, which is actually something bad, whereas
learning what is good from evil is not and are supposedly given a choice
to live eternally. Why would that be withheld from Adam and Eve?<br />
<br />
It's all very asinine. <br />
<br />
It doesn't get any better as you go through the bible. There are big problems throughout. <br />
<br />
I will continue to write all about these topics.<br />
<br />
For a fun bonus, I will leave you with a couple other things:<br />
<br />
<i>And <b>Satan</b> stood up against Israel, and <b>provoked David</b> to number Israel</i> (1 Chron. 1:21). <br />
<br />
<i>And again the anger of <b>Yahweh </b>was kindled against Israel, and he <b>moved David against them</b> to say, Go, number Israel and Judah</i> (2 Sam. 24:1).<br />
<span class="p"><br /></span>
<span class="p"><b>Was it Satan, or was it Yahweh? Or is Satan and Yahweh one and the same?</b>
Or do they work together? No matter how you slice it, there is a
problem. Then citizens of Israel were killed as a punishment by Yahweh
for David taking a census. This is like what Yahweh did to Pharoah.
He worked on the pharoah's mind so that he'd refuse to let Israel go,
but then Yahweh punished the citizens of Egypt for what he himself
forced pharoah to do. </span><br />
<span class="p"><br /></span>
<br />
<i>There went up a smoke out of [God's] nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it </i>(2 Sam. 22:9).<br />
<div class="reg">
<br />
<i>Out of [leviathan's] nostrils goes smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.<span class="reftext"><b> </b></span>His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth</i> (Job 41:20-21). (See Isa. 27:1 to see the leviathan described as a serpent).</div>
<span class="p"><br /></span>
<span class="p"><b>Whatever the bible god is and whatever the leviathan serpent dragon thing is, they sound the same. </b> They both have smoke coming out of their nostrils, fire coming out of their mouths, their breaths kindling coals.</span>MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-63140276781905086522015-05-29T15:00:00.005-07:002015-05-31T16:11:53.115-07:00The Power of Fear<span style="color: red;">Note: This was a post I wrote originally on my biblical "Growing in Grace and Knowledge" blog, written shortly after my open apostasy and rejection of the bible as God's word.</span> <br />
<br />
Fear. It's the tactic of any good dictator. The belief is that
people cannot rule themselves, they're inherently bad, and so it's the
duty of some individual to wield authority over the masses in a
monarchical arrangement. But who is so much better than any of the rest
of us to think he is fit to rule?<br />
<br />
I've always been of a
republic mindset myself. I believe in a free society. I believe that
when people work together using reason, there is freedom and happiness.
The helpless are helped, the unrelenting wicked are punished, and the
people use the better part of their time to enjoy life with their fellow
earthlings and work creatively to make the planet a better place.<br />
<br />
And it really <i>does</i>
work. When people are free to search truth and to live their lives
unrestricted, so long as they're not harming other persons or their
properties, people live together in relative harmony. It is in an
environment like this that things like slavery are abolished.<br />
<br />
But
there are, unfortunately, people out there who think they need to
rule. They've got to come up with a plan to deceive people to follow
them, though. Oftentimes they bring God or gods into the equation or
claim to be a god themselves.<br />
<br />
Currently I think there likely <i>is</i>
a God. <span style="color: red;">(Note: I believe now there is likely no god, but I did when I first wrote this post on my old biblical blog.)</span> But wow, there are all sorts of ways we, as people, have boxed
him up and labeled him. And then we're all deluded as children, just as
those before us were deluded as children, to believe in him <i>this way</i> or <i>that way</i>, whatever way your particular culture teaches it, and <i>then</i>,
if that wasn't enough, it's got to be paired up with a teaching that
it's heresy to prove it out for yourself, to your own satisfaction.
That means Muslims are forbidden to read the bible, Christians are
forbidden to read the Qu'ran, and so on. And all such peoples think
they are right. They <i>know</i> they're right. How? Why, because
their holy book says so, that's why! And how can it be wrong? So then
there's never and peace, because rather than using our Truth and Love
Guide (and I don't mean some book that you've got to place blind faith
in, since it was written by those who say <i>they</i> saw it and heard it) that resides in us, we rather listen to the little fear leech that tags along.<br />
<br />
I've heard from two dear friends today, and fear was brought up in both conversations.<br />
<br />
One
friend is doing the noble thing by "proving all things," seeing whether
what I've said holds any weight. She, like I, has had questions that
she's pushed back in her mind throughout the years, good questions that
any sane and rational person ought to have. She confided in me that she
is not ready to say anything to anyone, yet, and she's still
searching. Well, that's wise. I certainly didn't make <i>my</i>
decision overnight. No, I had to give my kids a lot of game time and
such so that I could read, read, read, and meditate, investigate. Day
after day, and week after week. And then add that to all the wise
questions that I've had filed away in my mind over the years. She may
not ever tell some people, she said, because of judgement. I can't say I
blame her at all. She also said, "I am realizing more and more about
the fear religion puts into us. It's mind boggling."<br />
<br />
Yep. I still have the fear leech saying, "What if you're wrong?" It's because I've been programmed for <i>soooo</i> long. But fear should never dominate over truth.<br />
<br />
That
brings me to the conversation I had with my other friend. It seemed to
me that she may have been ignoring me, rejecting me, over a couple
things she disagreed with me about. I didn't like how she said
something, though now as I type this, perhaps even that was not taken
exactly the right way, because you can't get an accurate emotional read
with something written, which this was. I <i>did</i> <u><b>reason</b></u> that maybe she was just busy (there <i>was</i> <u><b>evidence</b></u> available to me there that she <i>was</i>). I voiced it several times to my Love. I <i>really</i>
was concerned. I kept telling myself maybe she just didn't have time,
and I should just wait longer. But the fear leech within me said it was
because she was pissed at me, and so what I <i>should have done</i>, I didn't do. What I <i>should have done</i>
is asked her directly (I did ask her something in an email about
busyness with something, but it was vague) whether she was ignoring me,
whether she was mad at me, or whether she was just busy.<br />
<br />
The
reason I did not directly ask her which it was is because I failed to
work up the nerve to do so. I was afraid of the answer I'd get! <u><b>I was afraid of what the truth might be!</b> </u><br />
<br />
So
what do I do, amidst my hurt yesterday, when out of the blue I'm
getting all this messaging from her on my iPhone, basically saying she
was upset (understandable) and that she couldn't be my friend until I
repented? I lashed out! In the blog post I made up. No, I didn't name
who it was. I haven't named anyone regarding anything. But I
nevertheless did what I told myself I would not do, which is accuse her
of the assumption I had that was rooted in fear. Of course, I
apologized. She then told me that I've always been good to be patient,
that she's forgotten things before or didn't have time to talk for
awhile, and she told me that I've never hated her for it. That's all
true. I've got a good track record of being very understanding when I
don't get a fast response. I'm plenty guilty of the same, and I don't
expect anything greater out of others. But this time, as weeks turned
into months, which is quite a long time, and judging by the last things
she'd said to me, <u><b>I let the fear outweigh reason</b>.</u><br />
<br />
How many persons, I wonder, who reacted to me the way they did, truly read my entire <a href="http://taratorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/my-exodus-in-genesis-beginning-of-dogma.html">blog post</a>
before reacting? I'm personally struggling with how some could react
the way they did if they truly read it all. I think there's a good
chance some did not read it all. I know how the human mind works.
Sometimes when we start reading something that starts upsetting us, we
stop reading. We then assume that we know the whole story, we reach our
own conclusions quite quickly, and then go on the attack. Yeah. That's
right. You know how I know? Because I've been guilty of it before.
Because I know for a fact that others have done so before. So that's
why I think there's a good chance some didn't read it all thoroughly
before reacting. It's also important not to react right away after
reading something, but rather to go spend time meditating on it. These
are things that I've learned in <i>my</i> life, and I'm only 31.<br />
<br />
That
is also why I think my one friend that I haven't heard from (actually
haven't checked my email today, yet) hasn't responded, yet, because she
tends to go meditate on things for awhile before deciding how to
respond. I've observed that about her over the years. And I value it.
She's not quick to get into debates, but I think she sorts wise
judgements in her head. She's a good example in many ways.<br />
<br />
Now let's reason together...<br />
<br />
It's
fearful to think that we might be wrong about something, isn't it? I
can now better understand in a compassionate way how it's difficult for
many to turn away from the big Christmas and Easter celebrations and
their Sunday churches, etc., because it really is a big thing. You get
judged, some may reject you, you've got emotional attachments to various
things, and so on. People are afraid of the truth. The fear leech
keeps them entangled.<br />
<br />
How is it, though, for those who actually <i>did</i>
read the blog post, that they can search and find evidence that
Christmas and Easter and such originate in terrible pagan customs, yet
they won't investigate to see whether I'm telling the truth about the
biblical holidays being rooted in bloody and superstitious pagan
customs? How come it's ok that the bible contains holidays accepted
from Canaanite and Babylonian religions? How come it's ok that all the
tales are lies, because they're just stories borrowed from older
cultures? We know the Jews also, to this day, have the Babylonian
calendar months. They've got two new year days in a year, just like the
Babylonians. And they've got some of their holy days, as well as some
Canaanite ones.<br />
<br />
We should ask why so many who are bible
scholars have left their faith once they see all the manuscripts.
That's an intelligent and wise question to ask. Just in the new
testament books, there are more inconsistencies and contradictions in
all the manuscripts than there are words in the new testament! And
they're not all minor, either.<br />
<br />
The oldest gospel
manuscripts don't even teach that Jesus as divine. Some of us have
known for years that the last several verses of Mark aren't original and
that the words in one of the epistles of John were added to the KJV to
"prove" a trinity. There are, in fact, lots of other big problems. The
story of the woman caught in adultery is not original. It was added
much, much later. And on and on I could go. There are major
contradictions, not just things that can be reasoned as simple
differences in point of view (like how many women were at Jesus' tomb),
but much bigger things. The fact is that there were lots of different
"gospels" and such, and people just voted yea or nay at the Nicean
Council in the fourth century. Too bad they didn't pay close attention
to the four gospels, because they're terribly contradictory, moreso than
I realized before.<br />
<br />
It's said that Luke authored Luke
and Acts. The gospel "according to" Luke claims Jesus ascended later
the same day he was resurrected. Read through it carefully. He met
with the disciples, walked with them to Bethany, and then he ascended.
In Acts it was forty days afterward.<br />
<br />
Did he truly walk
to Emmaus and then meet the disciples later that day in Jerusalem in a
room, or did he rather meet them in Galilee? With the distance in mind,
it's impossible both happened. Which was it? Did he say they needed
to meet him in Jerusalem or Galilee? If one is true, the other is a
lie.<br />
<br />
How come history doesn't tell of the mass
slaughter of babies by Herod? Was John the Baptist outside of the
region affected (perhaps so, I could argue this myself)? Rome didn't
send people to the towns of their fathers to register in a census, and
could you imagine the chaotic mess it would be if that is how it was
done? It wasn't how it was done; you can look it up. Also, it was a
Judean census, so it would not have affected a Galilean. And finally,
the census was taken in 6 CE, when Qurinius was governor of Syria,
whereas the other gospel account says it was during Herod the Great's
reign, but he died in 4 B.C. One of them is lying. I've searched to
try to see whether anyone can reconcile it, and no one can
satisfactorily do so.<br />
<br />
If there is a God, and if there
is a judgement, will He judge us justly for using our reason and the
evidence we have and by our hearts, by how we react to certain things
(like the horrors in the old testament), or for having blind faith?<br />
<br />
I
know there are some who love using circular arguments, which pretty
much states that the bible is true, because it says it's true, but I
have <i>never</i> bought into that. If there is nothing to test the
bible's truthhood, then it would be wise to default to not believing
it. I've <i>always</i> made arguments with evidence outside of the
bible to try to back the bible, and I've gotten a lot further with
people that way than those who use circular reasoning who talked to the
same people. Circular reasoning is not reasoning at all.<br />
<br />
No
one should be afraid of searching. If searching brings you fear, what
is causing the fear? It's not healthy. Fear is not healthy. We've got
scientific evidence that it's not healthy for the mind, nor the body. <u><b>Fear is what evil beings use to control people. Truth and love is what good beings use to free people.</b> </u> Look around and observe it yourself. Judge by the fruit you see. Meditate on it. MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-84733141872614375792015-05-29T15:00:00.004-07:002015-05-31T16:11:36.463-07:00Yahweh Loved Human Sacrifices, My Bible Tells Me SoOkay, let's get started.<br />
<br />
<div class="reg">
<i>No one, however, may dedicate the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the <span class="name">Lord</span>; whether an ox
or a sheep, it is the <span class="name">Lord</span>’s. If
it is one of the unclean animals, it may be bought back at its set
value, adding a fifth of the value to it. If it is not redeemed, it is
to be sold at its set value.<b> But nothing that a person owns and devotes
to the <span class="name">Lord</span>—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed</b>; everything so devoted is most holy to the <span class="name">Lord</span>.</i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div class="reg">
<i><b>No person devoted to destruction<span class="nivfootnote"> </span>may be ransomed; they are to be put to death</b></i> (Lev. 27:26-29).</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Notice
that no one could dedicate a firstborn of anything to Yahweh, because
he had already made clear back in Exodus that the firstborn of both man
and beast were his, and those things were to be redeemed (Ex.
12:13-15). The Hebrew bible is not new in laws of redemption. Other
pagan cultures often redeemed their sons with animals. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
But here we see obviously that persons <i>could</i> be devoted to Yahweh in sacrifice and could <i>not</i> be redeemed. And indeed there are plenty of examples of such. So let's move on.</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
I'll go back to others, but I want to skip forward to Jephthah for now. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>Then the Spirit of the <span class="name">Lord</span>
came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah
of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. <b>And Jephthah made a vow to the <span class="name">Lord</span>: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the <span class="name">Lord</span>’s, and <u>I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering</u></b><u>.</u>”</i>
</div>
<div class="reg">
<i>Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the <span class="name">Lord</span> gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.</i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div class="reg">
<i>When
Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet
him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only
child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When
he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, <b>“Oh no, my daughter! You
have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the <span class="name">Lord</span> that I cannot break.</b>”</i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div class="reg">
<i>“My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the <span class="name">Lord</span>. Do to me just as you promised, now that the <span class="name">Lord</span> has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But
grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the
hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”</i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div class="reg">
<i>“You
may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends
went into the hills and wept because she would never marry.<b> After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. </b>And she was a virgin.</i></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>From this comes the Israelite tradition that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite </i>(Judges 11:29-40).</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
The
tribal war god of Israel, Yahweh, accepted Jephthah's vow and let him
win the victory over the Ammonites. Jephthah's daughter went to mourn
her virginity for a couple months, but when she returned, he "...did to
her as he had vowed." And he had vowed to sacrifice her as a burnt
offering. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Now
I read many years in the past some apologetic article claiming that she
was not sacrificed but rather had to stay a virgin all her life, but
since the passage doesn't say that and is rather very clear about what
it <i>does</i> say, I just went on thinking that Jephthah was not approved by God. But this is far from the truth.</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
The
story continues after the death of Jephthah's daughter, and he was
granted even more victorious slaughter. And then the author of Hebrews
wrote in the so-called "faith" chapter:</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon,
Barak, Samson, <b>Jephthah</b>, of David and Samuel and the prophets—who through faith...</i>(Heb. 11:32, 33a).</div>
<div class="reg">
<br />
<i><b>And all these,<u> though commended through their faith</u>, did not receive what was promised</b>, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect </i>(vs. 39-40)</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
How
sick! I don't approve of this!!! How did I not notice him in Hebrews
11?? But there's more, much more, so let's continue on. There's so
much else I see wrong now, anyway. I no longer see the people I thought
were good as good, like David. I'm awake now.</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Okay, it's easy to see how I've read over this upcoming stuff before, because I <i>lacked some important knowledge</i> before. I had <i>never</i> heard of foundation sacrifices, so I could not possibly understand what was being said in the book of Joshua. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Foundation
sacrifices were common in ancient cultures. Modern archaeologists have
found many children within walls surrounding cities. Just Google about
foundation sacrifices. You can even go to Google Images. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>Joshua laid an oath on them at that time, saying, “Cursed before the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> be the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho.</i></div>
<div class="line-group">
<i><span class="ln-group">“At the cost of his firstborn shall he</span><br /><span class="indent">lay its foundation,</span><br /><span class="br-ln-group-10">and at the cost of his youngest son</span><br /><span class="indent">shall he set up its gates.”</span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="regular">
<i>So the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> was with Joshua, and his fame was in all the land </i>(Josh. 6:26-27).</div>
<div class="regular">
<br /></div>
<div class="regular">
That
wasn't just a threat that a person's child would be killed if he
rebuilt a city there (as if that in itself isn't bad enough, what's
wrong with building there?), but this is saying that the firstborn and
youngest children of the man who decides to build there would be
sacrificed for the foundations. </div>
<div class="regular">
<br /></div>
<div class="regular">
Fast-forward to the time of the reign of Judah's king Ahab:</div>
<div class="regular">
<br /></div>
<div class="regular">
<i>In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho. He laid its foundation at the
cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his
youngest son Segub, according to the word of the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span>, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun </i>(1 Kings 16:34).</div>
<div class="regular">
<br /></div>
<div class="regular">
This
is sick! Yahweh cursed people for rebuilding where Jericho is and
commanded foundation sacrifices of the builder's firstborn and youngest
sons. Sick! Sick! Sick! Oh, and I just realized, that's another
contradiction (out of hundreds and hundreds in the bible)! Remember
according to Exodus and Leviticus the firstborn son of someone is to be
Yahweh's, but is supposed to be redeemed and so cannot be devoted to
destruction. Only other people were supposed to be allowed to be devoted
as sacrifices or burnt offerings. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
It
is believed by Christians that Jesus of Nazareth (even though that town
didn't exist in the first century) was the son of Yahweh (though Yahweh
is a really a non-entity but one of the many sons of El the head god of
the Canaanite pantheon). If it was truly so important that the town of
Jericho never be rebuilt, if it was truly so abominable that someone
rebuild in that location and call it by that name, then surely Jesus
would have not ever gone to Jericho. Or if the foundation sacrifices of
Hiel's firstborn and youngest sons were abominable to God (though it's
clear in Joshua and 1 Kings that it was Yahweh's curse and commandment),
then Jesus surely had an opportunity to say something during his visits
to Jericho. <i>See Mark 10:46; Matt. 20:29; Luke 18:35; 19:1</i></div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Not
too abominable to be in existence again, is it? Nah...just wanted to
make sure the foundations included two sons of the builder, that's all.</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Then
there's the king of Moab who sacrificed his son for a god's favor in
battle, since Israel was attacking. Once his son was burnt as an
offering, wrath (from a god, supposedly) came upon Israel, so Israel
fled. Now it's unclear whether the king sacrificed his son to the
Moabite god Chemosh or the Israelite god Yahweh, but either way they all
thought it worked. Israel fled. Either Chemosh came out to be the
stronger god in that battle because the sacrifice was to him, or Yahweh
was incensed against his own people because the Moabite king sacrificed
to him when Israel did not. This is all found in 2 Kings 3:26-27. If
you go back and read what was leading up to this, the wicked prophet
Elisha (same guy who cursed in the name of Yahweh for bears to come out
of the forest and maul to death 42 young guys/kids simply for making fun
of Elisha for being bald) said that Yahweh promised that the Moabites
would be delivered into Israel's hands. That didn't happen. All was
going all right for Israel until the sacrifice by the king of Moab. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Have
you ever noticed in scriptures like Leviticus 18:21 and Deuteronomy
12:31 and others, that they command not to sacrifice one's children in
fire to Molech or other gods? Those of us who find human sacrifice
appalling and have been taught that the bible god is a god of love
naturally assume these scriptures mean no child sacrifices or burnt
offerings of humans, period. But when we carefully examine the bible as
a whole, two things become clear:</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
1. The bible contradicts itself <i>a lot</i>. </div>
<div class="reg">
2.
Yahweh loved burning animals and humans and loved murdering in general.
He loved genocide and when his followers killed babies and bashed
babies on stones and ripped open pregnant women and made great
bloodshed. But the catch is that he only delighted greatly in these
things if they were offered to <i>him</i>. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>You slaughtered <b>my children</b> and sacrificed them to the idols </i>(Ezek. 16:21). </div>
<div class="reg">
<br />
<i>Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god</i> (Ex. 34:14).</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i><b>So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I
might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the <span class="name">Lord</span>.</b>’ (<span style="color: #9fc5e8;">What a sicko)</span>“Therefore, son of man, speak to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign <span class="name">Lord</span> says: In this also your ancestors blasphemed me by being unfaithful to me: When
I brought them into the land I had sworn to give them and they saw any
high hill or any leafy tree, there they offered their sacrifices, made
offerings that aroused my anger, presented their fragrant incense and
poured out their drink offerings. <b>Then I said to them: What is this high place you go to?’ </b> (<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Sounds like someone is jealous)</span>” (It is called Bamah
to this day.) “Therefore say to the Israelites: ‘This is what the Sovereign <span class="name">Lord</span> says: Will you defile yourselves the way your ancestors did and <b>lust after their vile images</b>? <b>When
you offer your gifts—the sacrifice of your children in the fire—you
continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to
let you inquire of me, you Israelites? </b>As surely as I live, declares the
Sovereign <span class="name">Lord</span>, I will not let you inquire of me</i> (Ezekiel 20:25-31).</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
When
we allow ourselves to wake up, we see the bible for what it really is.
People say they think the things Stalin, Hitler, Dracula and others did
were horrible things, but none of those people did anything as evil on
the huge scale that this Yahweh character did. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
It's
OKAY to wake up and stand up for what is moral and right. It's good
and respectable to say, "You know, something is WRONG here. This is not
good."</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
It's
OKAY to search through the bible and read it with an open mind,
scrubbed free from the programming, and realize, "You know, we've been
taught that Satan is the one who lied and murdered from the beginning,
but really the stories reveal that El and Yahweh lied from the beginning
and murdered. If anyone is Satan, it's Yahweh." Count the times
Yahweh murdered and then compare to the times Satan is said to have done
so. Count the times Yahweh deceived and then compare to the times
Satan is said to have done so. Count the times Yahweh commands rape and
compare to the times Satan commanded it. Do the same for coveting and
stealing and kidnapping and every other abomination. Search through the
bible and see how many times Yahweh commanded for these things to be
done, then go through the bible and count the times Satan did those same
things. Then you decide who is evil.</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Let's examine this next passage:</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>Hear the word of the <span class="name">Lord</span>, you kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. This is what the <span class="name">Lord</span>
Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a
disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of
it tingle. <b>For
they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have
burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor
the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the
blood of the innocent. They
have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire
as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it
enter my mind.</b> So beware, the days are coming, declares the <span class="name">Lord</span>, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. ‘In this place I will ruin
the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword
before their enemies, at the hands of those who want to kill them, and I
will give their carcasses as food to the birds and the wild animals. I
will devastate this city and make it an object of horror and scorn; all
who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. <b>I
will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will
eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so
hard against them to destroy them</b> </i>(Jeremiah 19:3-7).</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
He
was pissed because the Israelites were burning incense and children to
other gods. He was jealous again. The fact alone that there were
innocent children being murdered is obviously not the problem for him,
because he decided that since they wanted to serve other gods he would
make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters when their enemies
would come against them. So much for caring for the innocent children!
</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
No, of
course it didn't enter his mind for the Israelites to burn their
children in the fire to Baal. He had made clear all the children were
his (of which the firstborn were not to be killed, but rather he charged
a ransom for them, so the parents had to pay up). But sacrificing and
burning children most certainly <i>did</i> enter the mind of this
bloodthirsty monster. He never commanded anything to be done for other
gods, as he was a "no gods before me" and "jealous" god, but it "entered
his mind" for Isaac to be sacrificed and burnt, but then he provided a
ram for Abraham to murder and burn instead. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
On to the next horror story...</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
As
readers may know, it was common in ancient cultures, during times of
famine, to offer up human sacrifices to appease the god(s). We may be
horrified by this, but what we ought to be more horrified by is the fact
that Israel and their tribal war god Yahweh were no different. And
shame on me, because some of these verses I'm about to share were
highlighted in one of my bibles as part of my family studies for an
upcoming book. Now, you'd think I'd have clued in then (like two years
ago) when I read over that. You'd think I would have paused and said
"What is this garbage? This is not only unfair, but this is no
different than other pagan cultures did!" But no, I was still living in
blindness.</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years; so David sought the face of the <span class="name">Lord</span>. The <span class="name">Lord</span> said, “It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death.”</i>
</div>
<div class="reg">
<i>The
king summoned the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites
were not a part of Israel but were survivors of the Amorites; the
Israelites had sworn to spare them, but Saul in his zeal for Israel and
Judah had tried to annihilate them.) David asked the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? How shall I make atonement so that you will bless the <span class="name">Lord</span>’s inheritance?”</i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div class="reg">
<i>The
Gibeonites answered him, “We have no right to demand silver or gold
from Saul or his family, nor do we have the right to put anyone in
Israel to death.”</i></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>“What do you want me to do for you?” David asked.</i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div class="reg">
<i>They
answered the king, “As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against
us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and their bodies exposed before the <span class="name">Lord</span> at Gibeah of Saul—the <span class="name">Lord</span>’s chosen one.”</i></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>So the king said, “I will give them to you.”</i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div class="reg">
<i>The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the <span class="name">Lord</span> between David and Jonathan son of Saul. But
the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah’s daughter
Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of
Saul’s daughter Merab,<span class="nivfootnote"> </span>whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite. He handed them over to the Gibeonites, who killed them and exposed their bodies on a hill before the <span class="name">Lord</span>.
All seven of them fell together; they were put to death during the
first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning...</i></div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>And the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son buried they in the country of
Benjamin in Zelah, in the sepulchre of Kish his father: and they
performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was intreated
for the land. </i>(2 Sam. 1-9, 14).</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
There
was a famine, David prayed and found out from their god Yahweh that it
was because he was angered over Saul killing the Gibeonites, David had
two sons and five grandsons of Saul's hanged, and then their god was
intreated.</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Here we see one of the <i>many</i>
times Yahweh and his followers punished others for someone else's
doing. Of course, there's the huge contradiction in Ezekiel 18, which
happens to be one of my personal most-loved bible chapters, because of
its proper righteousness. It teaches that a father should not pay for
the sins of his son, nor a son pay for the sins of his father. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
It's
all a lie, though, in Ezekiel 18, talking of how Yahweh says a man
should die of his own sin, because he commanded the opposite over and
over and over again through the horrible books in the bible. He was <i>always</i>
punishing others for someone's wrongdoing. David's baby would know all
about that. David and Bathsheba engaged in adulterous sex, made a
baby, and Yahweh decided to put the baby to death for David's sin. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
Contradictory and unjust and just downright immoral and sick!</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<b>Most of us really would not live our lives the way Yahweh commanded Israel to do. </b>
They were to do right to each other, but everyone outside of Israel who
did not serve Yahweh were free game to murder and genocide, to rape, to
lands being coveted and stolen, and more. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, <b>Take
the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast</b>, thou, and
Eleazar the priest, and the heads of the fathers houses of the
congregation; and divide the prey into two parts: between the men skilled in war, that went out to battle, and all the congregation. And
levy a tribute unto Yahweh of the men of war that went out to battle:
one soul of five hundred, both <b>of the persons</b>, and of the oxen, and of
the asses, and of the flocks: take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, <b>for Yahweh's heave-offering</b>. And
of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one drawn out of
every fifty, <b>of the persons</b>, of the oxen, of the asses, and of the
flocks, even of all the cattle, and give them unto the Levites, that
keep the charge of the tabernacle of Yahweh. And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as Yahweh commanded Moses.</i>
</div>
<div class="reg">
<i><b>Now
the prey</b>, over and above the booty which the men of war took, was six
hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, and threescore and twelve thousand oxen, and threescore and one thousand asses, and <b>thirty and two thousand persons in all, of the women that had not known man by lying with him. <span style="color: #9fc5e8;">(Virgins)</span></b></i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div class="reg">
<i>And
the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in
number three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and
five hundred sheep: and Yahweh's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen. And the oxen were thirty and six thousand; of which Yahweh's tribute was threescore and twelve. And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which Yahweh's tribute was threescore and one. A<b>nd the persons were sixteen thousand; of whom Yahweh's tribute was <u>thirty and two persons</u>. And Moses gave the tribute, which was <u>Yahweh's heave-offering</u>, unto Eleazar the priest, as Yahweh commanded Moses</b></i> (Num. 31:25-41).</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
I'm
taking it that these virgins weren't given the opportunity to "bewail
their virginity" as Jephthah's daughter did. Jephthah's daughter agreed
with the sacrifice. These poor captive virgins probably screamed and
struggled against the horrible heathen (Israelite) captors that murdered
them and burnt them to Yahweh, as Yahweh had commanded. </div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
This is sick! This is evil! I do not approve of this.</div>
<div class="reg">
<br /></div>
<div class="reg">
<i>And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span>. I have gone on the mission on which the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I<b> have devoted the Amalekites to destruction.</b> But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, <b>the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> your God in Gilgal</b>.” And Samuel said,</i></div>
<div class="line-group">
<i><span class="ln-group">“Has the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,</span><br /><span class="indent">as in obeying the voice of the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span>?</span><br /><span class="br-ln-group-10">Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,</span><br /><span class="indent">and to listen than the fat of rams.</span><br />
<span class="ln-group">For rebellion is as the sin of divination,</span><br /><span class="indent">and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry.</span><br /><span class="br-ln-group-10">Because you have rejected the word of the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span>,</span></i><span class="indent"><i>he has also rejected you from being king.”</i> (1 Kings 15:20-23).</span></div>
<div class="line-group">
<span class="indent"><br /></span></div>
<div class="line-group">
<i>Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” And
Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your
mother be childless among women.” <b>And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces
before the <span class="divine-name">Lord</span> in Gilgal</b> (vs. 32-33).</i></div>
<div class="line-group">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="line-group">
Note
the "devoted to destruction." Remember Leviticus 27:26-29, where any
person who is devoted to destruction must be murdered and burned. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Odd
how I never noted that Samuel did his little speech on being better to
obey than to sacrifice, but he turned around and sacrificed. It's
really good if you read the entire bit, as I did not include the whole
length of the chapter. The whole thing that was disobeyed in the first
place was not sacrificing things. So why say something so stupid as
that? And really, I've always looked at the "obey" part as obeying the
law of love. You know, love your neighbor as yourself. But so much of
what Yahweh commanded were things of wickedness. It was hate your
neighbor by wiping them out, including slaughtering babies, then saving
the virgins to rape, stealing their neighbors' lands, burning things.
Then it was burn hundreds of thousands of animals and burn people. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
And
there we have it once again, punishing people for something someone
else did. Yahweh wanted a genocide of the Amalekites (including babies
and other children), because their <i>ancestors</i> from several hundred
years before did not let Israel through their land when they supposedly
came out of Egypt. Well, first of all, who could blame the Amalekites
for not wanting the Israelites on their land? They were a warring group
of people bent on destroying others. Secondly, what do the Amalekites
several hundred years later have to do with it?</div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Apparently
Yahweh didn't care about anyone else who were slaves to the Egyptians,
because in the slaughter of the firstborns of Egypt, it included the
firstborn of the maidservants! (Ex. 11:5) If they were slaves, then what
did they have to do with the slavery of the Israelites? Furthermore
Yahweh hardened the pharoah's heart, anyway, after every plague, and
what do the people have to do with what pharoah said, especially when
pharoah was being mind-controlled, anyway? And of course every time
Yahweh mind-controlled anyone or deceived anyone, the bible proclaims
that it was so he could show his power and might. What an evil tyrant!
You make a person do evil, and then you punish the person for doing
it. That's might loving, holy, and righteous. Too bad we don't see
parents the whole world over doing more of this with their kids. What a
fantastic world it would be. Really, you can start when they're really
young. Just take the arm of one of your children, make the child hit a
sibling, and then punish the child for it. Then you can say, "See how
powerful I am? Don't mess with me. I'm in charge, and if you don't
obey, I'll stone you or burn you to death." Wouldn't that be swell? </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Long
after I'd answered a lot of childhood questions from having grown up
Protestant and had changed my beliefs after doing my research, to be a
"commandment-keeping Christian," I still have had questions lurking in
my mind. But without any doubt in my mind, the single biggest question
I've had over the past several years is:<br />
<br />
<b>We think
the modern parents who murder their children and claim God was testing
their faith to see how much they loved him are psychotic, and some even
say that it was really Satan who told those parents to do it, but yet
why didn't Abraham think that when he nearly murdered Isaac? Why didn't
he think that it was a demonic spirit? </b></div>
<div class="line-group">
If
we credit all the things we know in our hearts that are good to God and
all the things we know in our hearts that are bad to Satan, then how
can the Abraham story be explained? </div>
<div class="line-group">
All
it takes is for you to do your research. What Abraham and companions
did was not any different than what others did in the surrounding
cultures. That family was henotheistic. The Israelites chose Yahweh as
their single god to worship, rather than worship any of the other gods,
because they loved to kill, steal, and rape. Yahweh was the god of war
in the Canaanite pantheon of Gods (headed by El). If you look today in
Israel, you'll see nothing has changed. They still love to murder
others, steal people's land, and so on, and they claim they have the
right to do it all in the name of Yahweh, because they are his chosen
people. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Abraham
didn't mind cutting off foreskins, either. Hey look, the majority of
people in the United States still let their boys be circumcised without
questioning it, but I've had three boys, and we had none of them cut
on. I'm anti-genital mutilation. I watched a video (actually I could
not watch the entire thing, it was too violent and heartbreaking) of an
infant circumcision, and I decided right then I would not let any child
of mine undergo that procedure. I was able to use "new testament"
scripture, of course, to stay in line with my being a Christian. But if
I didn't have that, I would have just been disobedient to Yahweh's law.
</div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
If
I'm not even willing to unnecessarily let someone violently shed blood
from my sons' penises, what makes you think I'd prove my "faith" by
murdering a son for a god? Well, I wouldn't. Plain and simple. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Since
I would never do this, I do not know why Abraham would have shown his
faith by doing such a horrible thing. Since I'm unblinded and free from
this horrible bible cult, I will boldly say I do not respect the person
of Abraham whatsoever. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Nor
do I respect the person of Yahweh (who really doesn't exist but was one
of many made-up sons of El and brother of Baal and others). He showed
over and over and over again through the bible that he loved the most
atrocious murders, violent and bloody deaths against innocent babies and
pregnant mothers and rapes of virgins who had seen their families
murdered. Absolutely no mercy against those people because they did not
serve him. He showed himself to be very unjust by repeatedly
punishing innocent people for things other people did. The bible
repeatedly tells of him deceiving people or forcing them to do things
against their will so that he could then punish them. He demanded
constant human and animal slaughtering on a large scale and the burning
of their bodies so that he could smell it. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Is
it any surprise that someone would want to come along and change up
things to make things better? Doesn't it make sense that someone would
want to start a new cult in hopes that the Jews wouldn't be so
murder-crazy and rebellious? Even if it meant taking things here and
there from the bible to insert into his story to make it appear that a
messiah had come and fulfilled prophecy, I can understand why they
wanted to do it. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Should
we be surprised, though, that it's portrayed that Yahweh gave up his
own son to have him murdered because of something someone else did? We
should expect nothing else, since that's all he ever did throughout the
bible. He was always murdering people for things other people had
done. That's just his way. He delights in murdering innocent blood for
something someone else did. The only thing worse is that there was no
burning hell in the bible, but in the gospels there is a horrible
punishment for those after death who do not believe and obey the gospel
of Christ, who do not accept that Yahweh had his son murdered for
mankind. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
You
know, I've never had trouble understanding that people who walk in
goodness deserve forgiveness and people who walk in wickedness without
remorse deserve punishment. But I never deeply questioned the Christ
sacrifice story, having it so ingrained within me all my life...until
one day I heard two persons discussing it, and the one person said, "Why
not just forgive?" </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Wow. That really hit me. The following day I wandered around outside meditating on that. "Why not just forgive?" </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Well,
yeah. Why not? That's a good question. I mean, after all, that's
what I do with my beloved children. I guide them in goodness, and when
they mess up, I talk to them, and I forgive. When I mess up, they
forgive me. Parents aren't without wrongdoings, either. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
God
is the rule-maker. So why is our morality better than his? I speak of
this Yahweh that people assume is god. Of course he's not. He's a
bronze-age mythical god, one of many gods. But people have it
programmed into their minds that he's full of righteousness.</div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Well,
not according to my rulebook. And why should I respect him when he's
far worse than any cruel man dictator that has ever ruled on this
planet? That's not what I practice. And who does? Does anyone think
we should practice the immorality of Yahweh and his followers, as
explained in the bible? </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
Will
you be blind and say, "Who am I to say what's righteous?" Well, you've
got choices. You can submit to Yahweh and agree that he's perfect and
righteous. Or you could stop beating yourself up over your little
mistakes that pale in comparison to the wickedness of that tyrant. I
don't know any human being who is more immoral than the likes of Yahweh.
</div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
If he's a parent, he needs to ask for <i>our</i>
forgiveness for being such a horrible monster, a horrible example.
Just think of all the horrible wars just between Jews, Muslims, and
Christians? Think of all the horrible things done in history in the
name of that monster. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
If
there really was a Yahweh and a Satan, it should be clear who is really
the good one and who is the bad one. All you've got to do is read your
bible! Tally up all the evil done by Yahweh (and it even says several
times that he does evil, and sometimes he even repents of the evil and
feels bad, but it's never long-lasting, as he's always quickly back to
unleashing the worst wrath on people) and that done by Satan, then you
judge. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
If
there really was a Yahweh and a Satan, then who is really deceived? If
there really was a Satan, then I'd say Yahweh is the Satan, and he's
done a damn good job of deceiving everyone into worshiping his monstrous
being. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
I
firmly believe there are two types of people in the world: good people
and bad people. It doesn't matter whether the person is Christian,
Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or else. There are bad people and good people
under all those labels. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
And I like good people and being around good people. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
As
for me and my household, we will serve goodness. Ol' Joshua and his
household liked to serve Yahweh, but I won't serve someone whose morals
are so beneath mine. A parent should guide a child in goodness and
lovingly guide. That Yahweh character stays hidden and pits everyone
against each other in the most horrible acts. He's a cowardly and evil
person. If I had created the earth and everyone, I'd be present and be
a loving guide, just as I am in real life to my children. </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
What about you? Do you love Yahweh the war god of the Israelites? </div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
<div class="line-group">
<br /></div>
MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-61903910885538083232015-05-29T15:00:00.003-07:002015-05-31T16:10:52.818-07:00Elisha a False Prophet and Yahweh a Lover of Human SacrificeI was putting together what I'm finding in the bible that the
Israelite-Canaanite-Phoenician god Yahweh loves human sacrifice, so long
as it's to him, when I came across the fact that not only is that
suitable, but Elisha was a false prophet.<br />
<br />
I'll write more about human sacrifice tomorrow, but real quickly here:<br />
<br />
2 Kings 3:18 says that Elisha said that the Moabites would be delivered into the hands of Israel and Edom.<br />
<br />
Okay, read through, keep reading. They are killing the Moabites, and then...<br />
<br />
And
interestingly enough these next two verses I have high-lighted in the
color I used for my family studies for a section in the book I've been
planning. Ironic how I didn't see the bigger picture before. Isn't
that interesting how at certain times we just don't see things that we
see at later times? We may have our eyes open to some things, but then
we remain blinded to others. <br />
<br />
Vs. 26-27 state that
when the battle looked grim to the king of Moab, he grabbed his eldest
son, his heir, and he offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall.
How absolutely awful.<br />
<br />
Now the god of Moab was Chemosh,
but it doesn't say there whether the king offered his son to Chemosh or
to Yahweh. Either way...<br />
<br />
There was great wrath against
Israel, so Israel fled. Yep! So Moab wasn't delivered into Israel's
hands, as Elisha prophesied. Israel ended up fleeing before they
finished the job, and it was this "wrath" against Israel after the
Moabite king sacrificed his firstborn. Whether it was supposedly
Chemosh's wrath or Yahweh's wrath, depending unto whom the Moabite king
sacrificed, two things are evident:<br />
<br />
1. Elisha is a false prophet.<br />
2. Yahweh is either wicked for accepting Moab's sacrifice to him, or he allowed Chemosh to beat him.<br />
<br />
End of story.<br />
<br />
But more really horrific things tomorrow, as I'm sorting through the verses in my bible. Just wait to see what it's in store.<br />
<br />
Make sure if you are reading this and you want the truth yourself, check those scriptures and read it thoroughly for yourself. MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-26778660894494826472015-05-29T15:00:00.002-07:002015-06-10T11:01:30.828-07:00The Tree Story is Impossible: Part 2Oh yes, that's right. When using the brain with which I was
supplied, I thought of two more reasons why the tree story is
ridiculous, after I posted part one.<br />
<br />
First: Is death
good or evil? Adam and Eve obviously knew what it meant. Notice when
they were told by El/Elohim that they would surely die in the day the
day they knew what good and evil was, they're not recorded as to having
asked what "die" means. But Eve repeated it to the serpent, saying
Elohim said that they would die. It all seems to imply she knew what
dying meant. So, clearly they already knew some evil <i>before</i> eating the fruit.<br />
<br />
The
simple revealing of what it means to die is some knowledge of good and
evil. I think Adam and Eve would likely think of their lives as good
and that dying would be evil.<br />
<br />
Second: There was also
the tree of life. Why didn't they just eat from that tree first? And
what would that mean? That they'd get spirit bodies to live forever?
Then they couldn't reproduce more flesh-bodied people so that their
offspring could make their own choices whether to "know good and evil."<br />
<br />
Did
it mean they'd just stay alive as long as they continually ate from
it? But that wouldn't make sense, because it sounds as if they were
going to live indefinitely in physical bodies, anyway, so long as they
didn't eat from the Knowledge tree. There was nothing saying, "You'll
die eventually, anyway, so long as you don't eat from that tree." From
the post-eating words from the Elohim, it sounds as if they decided to
guard the tree of life to prevent Adam and Eve from living forever.<br />
<br />
So
what if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life first and so would
have lived forever? Then what if they'd eaten from the knowledge tree
afterward? Or would that tree then be blocked off if they'd eaten from
the tree of life first? We already know that the Elohim said, after
the garden couple had eaten from the knowledge tree, that they then were
like the Elohim in that they knew good from evil. So having the same
knowledge of what is good and bad like the Elohim can't be tolerated,
but living forever like the Elohim would have been tolerated, had they
eaten from the tree of life first?<br />
<br />
But if they'd have
lived forever, then they'd eventually know good and evil, regardless of
whether they'd eat from the knowledge tree, as I explained in my part
one post.<br />
<br />
And besides, later on in the bible the
knowing what is good from evil is hailed as a good thing and that we
should seek knowledge and choose the good and reject the evil.<br />
<br />
It's
making a lot of sense now why it's said a person needs to become like a
little child in order to believe in all this nonsense. A poor innocent
child will usually just believe what their authority figures tell them,
without question.<br />
<br />
Of course, this is just the
beginning of the breakdown of the absolute folly of the book people call
the bible. I am one of the many who bought into it all and now have
gone into it fresh and unblinded, putting aside pre-indoctrination and
can see it for what it is.MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-67102091016032625162015-05-29T15:00:00.001-07:002015-05-31T16:10:04.727-07:00The Tree Story is ImpossibleSo, I was just thinking to myself a bit ago about my own creation
story, how I would have done things if I was a creator of a world and
people.<br />
<br />
I was thinking about helping people learn as they go in life, which is pretty much what we do for our own children <i>now</i>, no different; correcting gently as things go along, and then it hit me:<br />
<br />
There is <i>no way</i> the tree of the knowledge of good and evil story can be true.<br />
<br />
1.
If no one had eaten from it, then life would go along, but eventually
something would come up where there would be a conflict of some sort.
Maybe it would be a disagreement on property ownership or one man
lusting after another's wife and causing jealousy, or whatever. This is
where people would know good and evil. No tree necessary.<br />
<br />
2.
If they were inherently perfect, where nobody would ever possibly enter
a conflict of any sort, then they were never really created with free
will, as free moral agents. And in that case, why would they have been
created in flesh in the first place, if being spirit-bodied is
supposedly the state of perfection?<br />
<br />
Also, how would it
be sin to realize—to "know"— there are bad consequences for some
actions, which is what happens when we learn something is bad, as it's
learned normally through our experience or observation of someone
else's? It's called learning.<br />
<br />
It's only foolish or
wrong if, after learning, the behavior is repeatedly practiced. Again,
it can't be a transgression to come to the knowledge of good and evil,
because if it is:<br />
<br />
1. Then the god of the bible (which
is no creator of mine, I know now) is the ultimate transgressor, since
he knows good and evil.<br />
<br />
2. It was <i>inevitable. </i>We
know how we come to know good and evil. It's when we learn from
experience or from the experiences of others. If someone eats a fruit
off a certain plant, and it kills him or her, we know not to eat that
fruit! In other cases, if we've seen lots of people eat that fruit with
no ill consequences, but then someone comes along, and he dies
afterward, we know it was only evil for him and similar others (he was
allergic). So we were forced into "sin," anyway, since it was
inevitable to learn what good and evil is without the tree!<br />
<br />
3.
El, the Canaanite bible god, supposedly told Adam and Eve to not eat
the fruit from that tree, but why put the damned tree there in the first
place, if they're inevitably going to learn what's good and evil on
their own, anyway?! And then he tempted them with it by telling them
not to do it but leaving the serpent in the garden with them. Whatever
that serpent was, whether a snake with legs or the Satan or whatever, it
obviously knew things and talked, and it didn't even lie as people
claim, because exactly what he said would happen did indeed happen.
Their eyes were opened so that the knew good and evil like El. They
also didn't die. As a matter of fact, they supposedly lived nearly a
millennium! We don't live that long today. If it was the supposed
"second death" that was referred to, then <i>damn</i>, that's sick. I
love my babies waaaaay too much, and they've done a whole lot worse than
simply eating something I told them not to (they've done that, too),
and it's not in my heart to bring them back from the dead only to kill
them again in flames. I'm too loving for that. And too just for that.
Feel like I should throw that one in, too.<br />
<br />
As a matter
of fact, even though I wish they (and myself) were perfect, I would
rather live eternally with my kids just the way they are (the good
outweighs the bad by far) than to burn them to death.<br />
<br />
So how's that? I challenge anyone to answer me on this.<br />
<br />
Perhaps
someone out there can show just how evil he or she is and show the true
nature of his or her heart by trying to argue this, but I don't know
who would want to do so.<br />
<br />
My eyes are indeed open to
knowing good and evil, and there's a lot more evil in the "old
testament" books than good. So for my choosing the good, who wants me
to burn?MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-15189191420048020202015-05-29T15:00:00.000-07:002015-06-10T11:01:30.822-07:00Knowledge of Good and Evil: Good or Bad?Is eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil good or bad? I personally <i>love</i>
eating from that tree. I like to grow in knowledge so that I can
become wise and discerning, so that I can make moral decisions that
benefit me and others.<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, <b>who today have no knowledge of good or evil</b>, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it </i>(Deut. 1:39)<br />
<br />
We
have on one hand the teaching that we are conceived in sin (Psa. 51:5 )
and that sin has fallen on all mankind due to Adam's and Eve's
so-called "sin" (Rom. 5:12 ). But here we see the teaching that little
children do not possess knowledge of good and evil. If the "sin" of
Adam was that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
and this is the sin that has been passed on, why is it that little
children do not in fact know good from evil? And of course we know this
is true. Modern psychology has come a long way, and it's known that
until around the age of seven, give or take a year, a child does not
possess his own concept of good and evil and can only rely on what
authority figures tell him until that point in development. This goes
back to what I demonstrated in a previous post, namely that once you
reach a certain age and a certain circumstance, you <i>will</i> "know good and evil." And knowing good and evil is a <i>good</i> thing, because then it allows you to make a moral decision, to choose either good or evil. <br />
<br />
<i>For <b>my people are foolish,</b> they know me not; they are sottish children, and they have no understanding; they are wise to do evil, but <b>to do good they have no knowledge</b> </i>(Jer. 4:22).<br />
<br />
This
speaks on the bible god's behalf that his people are foolish and don't
know to do good, because they have no understanding and no knowledge,
that they're only wise to do evil. First of all, since when is it wise
to do evil? Knowledge is the first step. A person needs knowledge.
Then the person can make a moral and wise decision or a foolish and evil
decision. From these learning experiences and observations of others'
experiences, persons obtain understanding. Secondly it seems apparent
that the so-called "sin" of Adam didn't befall these people. They were
"wise to do evil," because they did not possess the knowledge and
understanding of the difference between good and evil. There is
entirely too much nonsensical double speak in the bible.<br />
<br />
<i>And moreover, <b>because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge</b>; yes, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs</i> (Ecc. 12:9)<br />
<br />
This
teaches that someone is wise if he teaches a person knowledge. I agree
with this. I believe it's wise to teach knowledge to people.
Knowledge greatly benefits mankind and enables them to make moral
decisions and obtain wisdom and understanding. This statement in
Ecclesiastes is completely contradictory to the notion that it was bad
to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It basically
teaches that the bible god is <i>not wise</i>, because he refused to teach Adam and Eve knowledge. It teaches that the serpent was wise.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge</b> among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom</i> (Jam. 3:13).<br />
<br />
This
statement exalts the man who is wise and knowledgeable. It teaches
that people should pay attention to those who are knowledgeable and have
shown by his works that he is wise. Here we see one more instance that
the bible god is shown to be unwise and wicked for wanting to keep
people in the dark and to punish them for finding out something. Today
there are millions of "Christians" and "Muslims" and "Jews" who beat
faith into people, commanding fellows to not dare question what their
holy texts say, to never read other texts, to never listen to science,
to never question anything. They beat fear into people, teaching that
they will burn forever in hell if they stray. They do not want them to
grow in knowledge and become wise and full of understanding. They go to
strong measures for their fellows to "just believe" and "keep the
faith." If you do dare to question anything and choose knowledge, they
often will shun you, reject you, condemn you, and hate you.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8x8tH7C-zn4/U-aXnYPe5hI/AAAAAAAAEFo/5PM_36aa3Qc/s1600/IMG_7093.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8x8tH7C-zn4/U-aXnYPe5hI/AAAAAAAAEFo/5PM_36aa3Qc/s1600/IMG_7093.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Source: Uncertain, perhaps demotivation.us</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<i>Butter and honey shall he eat, <b>when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good</b>, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken</i> (Isa. 7:15)<br />
<br />
Here
again we see that there is a time before a child is old enough to know
good from evil and know to refuse the evil. Children of a certain age,
if they are doing evil, it's because they do not know it. They can walk
out in front of a moving car (evil/bad) and not know the horrible
result. They can take another person's possession and not understand
that they are transgressing the other person's property rights. This
once again makes it clear that eating from a tree has absolutely nothing
to do with knowing good and evil and that knowing good and evil is
actually a good thing so that one can "know to refuse the evil." <br />
<br />
<i>And this I pray, <b>that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge</b> and all discernment; so that ye may approve the things that are excellent</i> (Phil. 1:9-10).<br />
<br />
In
order to exercise good discernment and to approve the things that are
excellent, one must abound "yet more and more" in knowledge. You're not
going to be able to be endued with knowledge and discernment in order
to approve good things if you do not eat from the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil (symbolically speaking)! <br />
<br />
<i><b>Hate the evil, and love the good</b>, and establish justice in the gate</i> (Amos 5:15a).<br />
<br />
It's impossible to hate evil and love good if one does not possess the knowledge of good and evil.MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-6730793157746465822015-05-29T14:44:00.000-07:002017-04-04T20:05:12.778-07:00My Exodus in Genesis: The Beginning of a Dogma-Free Life<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: red;">Note: This was first posted on my "Growing in Grace and Knowledge" blog on July 19, 2014 as my public coming-out that I was an apostate and no longer believed the bible to be the word of God. For a very short time, I still believed there probably was a god, but I am now a practicing atheist, who like most atheists, claims to be agnostic as to whether there is a god or not but figures there is probably not.</span><i> </i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<br />
<i>All truth passes through three
stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third,
it is accepted as being self-evident. ~Arthur Schopenhauer~</i> </div>
<br />
I'm
learning and realizing so much that it's hard to know where to begin in
my writing, but I think a good place to start is with the mention of
something quoted in a sermon given by a friend of mine, over a year and a
half ago, entitled, "What is Truth?" <br />
<br />
He quoted
someone, though I forget whom, saying something like, "Do we value truth
above all? Above Christianity, above the bible?" Of course, my
immediate in-though response was, "Absolutely!" Because that's true. I
do desire truth above all things, even love (which comes second),
because there can be "love" in the absence of truth. <br />
<br />
At
that time, however, I still believed the bible was true. I knew it had
some contradictions and some translational errors, but whereas I use my
reason and logic pretty well in most areas of my life, I was letting
some sort of attachment squash reason in regards to many things within
the bible. I do think that there are good lessons and some wise sayings
in the bible, but I think the stories therein and of "Jesus" being the
saving son of God, etc. are a big lie. There are lots of other books
with some good teachings, too, also with some lies. I've read other
books, though, that are overall much better than the bible when it comes
to teaching morals.<br />
<br />
There are so many places I can
start with this continuance, which will begin to explain how I arrived
at this, but I will start with an an incident that occurred just a few
weeks prior to this writing. <br />
<br />
One to three nights
prior to the day, my Love and I were once again discussing things with
one another, when he questioned what it says in the book of Matthew
about Jesus being named so and then claiming it was because it was
prophesied he was to be named Immanuel. I replied that I'd always
thought it was just another name for him, like a middle name. He kept
objecting, saying that the text said he was to be called Jesus based on
the prophecy that said he was to be called Immanuel.<br />
<br />
Now
to the day soon following that night: The kids and I went outside,
while my Love was away at a job. I had the whole Jesus-Immanuel thing
on my mind, so I grabbed a bible on my way out and proceeded to read the
part in Matthew, then flipped back to Isaiah 7 to read. I frowned.
Not only are the names Jesus and Immanuel different, with different
meanings, but Isaiah was talking about someone entirely different! He
wasn't prophesying about any future-coming Messiah at all! (And how did
that escape my notice before?? Blindness…)<br />
<br />
I thought
maybe if I ran back inside and grabbed the book a friend of mine wrote
on the prophets, I'd come to an understanding. So I did just that. I
got back to my chair outside and flipped through the pages until I got
to the commentary on Isaiah 7. He said verse 14, the "Immanuel" verse
was prophesying the Messiah. Then I read on, and he started talking
about about a prophetess' son. What?!<br />
<br />
So I read the
whole thing before that, in my bible, and after it again, on into Isaiah
8. The whole thing is talking about a sign to Ahaz concerning Syria,
Ephraim, and Samaria and what would happen within an allotted time. The
sign was the maiden conceiving and bearing a son, and all that Isaiah
said would happen would do so before the child was old enough to know
good from evil. So it has nothing to do with an anointed one to come
hundreds of years afterward. Not a very good sign to Ahaz that would
be. (Oh, and by the way, that child's name turned out not to be
Immanuel, either.) How in the world can a person take a snippet of a
verse out of context and apply it to be a foretelling of a son of a
god? It's the same way that some people, after the twin towers of the
World Trade Center came down in 2001, took a snippet from Nostradamus'
prophecy about twins being destroyed in York. And that's how all such
"prophecy" works. People make things to happen, just as it says in the
gospels even, "So that this may be fulfilled…," and people take snippets
of whatever to make them fit. <br />
<br />
My face must have been
contorted in confusion and disgust. I thought, "How do you get that
from this???" I slammed the book closed, closed the bible, and leaned
back in my chair with a sigh, staring across the yard into nothing. I'd
had quite a bit of that for one day. Some day, I thought, I'd like to
finally look up all the supposed prophecies to compare them all…<br />
<br />
Before
fast-forwarding a few weeks, I'd like to go back up in the past a bit.
My Love, who, for those wondering, had been heavily researching on his
own, especially video debates (so that he can hear different sides for
things) for the last year. Over a decade ago, when we were active in
the Southern Baptist churches, he kept telling me there was more to just
believing in Jesus to be saved. I kept telling him it was that simple,
we weren't saved by works (even though I personally had prayed the
so-called "sinner's prayer" numerous times throughout my childhood,
because it just didn't seem to work any magic for me). He kept saying
there had to be more to it. It was during his persistence of that
period when we both started getting serious about reading the bible. I
did so at home, while he did so in hotel rooms, as he worked out of
state during the week. Separately reading, we both came simultaneously
to the same conclusions, that what we were reading was vastly different
than what we'd been taught in the Protestant churches. Then, long story
short, we arrived at what I've lived out (and somewhat off and on so
for my husband) for the last decade, rejecting the pagan Christianity
doctrines of the trinity, ever-burning hell, heaven upon death,
Christmas, Easter, Sunday, etc. Now we both look back and wonder why we
foolishly thought that since people didn't follow the book exactly,
that still made the book the word of God. But we both agree that it was
still a stepping stone in our life's journey of learning, and I'm just
so thankful I'm still young and have mostly young children. I haven't
invested my entire life in a lie as some have. I always try to look on
the positive side of things, so I am mostly feeling thankful, rather
than feeling enraged at myself.<br />
<br />
Now back to recently,
fast-forwarding a few weeks from my little Jesus-Immanuel examination.
It was our rest day, and my Love texted me a link to an essay written by
Thomas Paine (one of America's "Founding Fathers") on the prophecies of
Jesus Christ (which I know now is actually part 3 of his <i>Age of Reason</i>). <br />
<br />
So
outside I went, with him following to sit beside me to read his own
thing, while our beloved children jumped in a water sprinkler that our
eleven-year old son constructed himself.<br />
<br />
Thomas Paine
had gone through all the places in the gospels where there were claimed
fulfilled prophecies that were to be fulfilled during Jesus' life, and
he went back to where the supposed prophecies were, and he crushed each
and every one in succession (I've since flipped through them all on my
own, too), beginning with the one I'd seen on my own just weeks ago to
be a farce.<br />
<br />
I immediately fell in love with Paine's writing
style and thought process, which reminded me of my own. I kept
laughing aloud, and my Love said he was surprised to hear me laughing,
that he hadn't expected that response (though he had hoped that that
would be the thing that opened my eyes). Ah, but what he did not know was that had been exactly what I had been
wanting to see myself, and here someone else had done this already, and
it just so happened that my Love had sent it to me.<br />
<br />
It
was a job well done, with perfectly appropriate comments throughout,
proper for exposing such deception and expressing anger at such folly
(and since then, I've started going through other books of the "new
testament" and writing down how insane and dishonest other claims of
fulfilled prophecy are).<br />
<br />
I've since read a lot more of
Thomas Paine's writings and other things written by a Deist
point-of-view, which fits me so well, as nature has always spoken the
loudest to me, over the bible or anything else. It is the natural
religion, opposed to "revealed religion," all coming from various men
that we must trust rather than our Creator (if there is one) directly.<br />
<br />
I've
read many things over the years, including New Age and Greek myths in
my teens, the book of Jasher (mentioned twice as a reference in the
bible), some of Enoch, and many others. Over the past two years I've
read the Holy Vedas, the Buddhist Dhammapada, as well as others. I
still am reading a volume of collected "Buddhist Scriptures" (which I am
mostly disliking quite a bit, though I liked the Dhammapada).<br />
<br />
It
was through my reading of the Muslim Qur'an, the Hindu Vedas, and the
Buddhist Dhammapada over the past two years that I came to realize that
men twist everything and add to everything. The vast majority of
content in those books was all very good and agreeable with the good
parts of the bible. The Qur'an claims it confirms Torah and gospels,
though it doesn't fully, so it begs the question why Muslims aren't
checking out the Torah and gospels to see what they say. It also
teaches some of the same pagan Christianity beliefs, like an
ever-burning hell, except it at least explains how it's possible, namely
that the wicked will constantly receive new skins as they burn off. <br />
<br />
I
love the Vedas. There's hardly anything in there that warrants
flagging. It's full of wonderful wisdom and sensible teaching and
mostly refers to one Creator. I realize there are other Hindu books
that I haven't yet read in full, but there was nothing, really, in the
Vedas that looked like the Hinduism religion. The same can be said of
the Qur'an and Islam. Men add ideas to people's books and make
religions. Judaism was created with more than the bible's old
testament. Christianity was created with more than just the bible.<br />
<br />
Now
when I had revealed all this to my Love months ago, it had apparently
sealed the deal for him (unbeknownst to me until much more recently).
He recently confided in me that the strength with which I argued things
had kept him just unsure enough to keep fighting against his
reasoning, which eventually prevailed with the accumulation of
information and evidence.<br />
<br />
I'd read about an alternative
creation story eight years or so ago, which still contained Adam and
Eve. Then my Love and I listened to an audio version of the Epic of
Gilgamesh three or four years ago. Until a few weeks ago those were the
only alternative or parallel creation and/or flood accounts I'd
explored. This was before the prophecy incident. One of the biggest
things my Love has talked about the past year is the biblical flood
story, and so I just decided to read other accounts several weeks ago. I
guess I thought maybe by doing so I was going to give more credence to
the bible story, but the opposite happened, in fact, as I meditated on
it all for the days and weeks following my reading of them. For the
last few years I have believed in the not-so-popular belief that the
flood was regional, because I am a reasoning, logical, scientific
person, and scientifically the regional flood is the only one that even
had a chance of passing the possibility test. After reading the flood
accounts, though, and reading the biblical text over and over again,
there's no denying that it's meant to be believed as a planet-wide flood
that covered all the mountains, which most certainly did not take
place.<br />
<br />
Among the many flood accounts that have survived
there are a few parallel to the bible. They are obviously about the
same main character, because the names are all similar or the same to
Noah. He built a boat, various birds are let loose, and the boat lands
on a mountain. But in the Near East versions the boat lands there, in
the Australian version, the boat lands on a mountain in Australia, and
in the Hawaii version the boat lands in Hawaii. Birds differ a bit, and
the sacrifices differ. In Hawaii, for example, "Nua" offered coconuts
and such.<br />
<br />
There were also a few flood accounts that
talked more of a log or bottle or barrel-type vessel that kids were
sealed up in, with a sooty plug in a hole. The one who unplugged it
became black from the soot, and so he became the father of the black
peoples (yeah, go figure). Remind you of an alternative story in the
bible about Noah's son Ham? It at least didn't involve soot, but…<br />
<br />
I
soon thereafter read more creation accounts. There had been a flood
story that interlaced a creation account, because it was clearly an
alternative to the two trees story. It didn't involve trees but rather a
fish that wasn't supposed to be eaten.<br />
<br />
As I said
already, I'd read all those things before the prophecies incident, and I
reasoned initially that the numerous tales gave more credit, perhaps,
to the bible.<br />
<br />
But then even more recently I let my children watch a movie called <i>Tangled</i> (Disney). It's based on the <i>Rapunzel</i>
tale. A wicked woman stole a princess baby, because the child had
magic hair that would glow when she sang. It kept the wicked woman
young and supposedly beautiful, because the hair contained healing
properties. The catch, though, was that if her long golden hair was
cut, it would turn brown and lose its power.<br />
<br />
Hmmm…that reminded me of the Samson and Delilah story and so inspired me to see whether there were other parallel stories. <br />
<br />
I
can't say I was really surprised to find that there were.
Hercules/Apollo apparently would lose his power if his hair was cut, and
he also killed a lion with his hands (or with a club and finished it
with his hands, depending on which version) and ate honey from it. It
predates Samson by at least several decades to a century. I looked up
the dates for both. <br />
<br />
So then I started searching other
fanciful tales from bible lore, and sure enough, all of them are found
in other nations' mythology, predating the biblical accounts, some by
many centuries. <br />
<br />
Cain and Abel, Jonah and the fish,
Samson and Delilah, talking animals, killing a giant…it all can be found
predating when the bible events supposedly took place. The Jews copied
things from from other cultures and wrote out a fancy-sounding history
for themselves. <br />
<br />
None of the bible (saving for Job,
perhaps, which is likely the story of a "gentile") was even written
until the time of Israelite and Judahite monarchies, and a great deal
wasn't made up and written until the Babylonian captivity of the Jews.
Initially I was skeptical of this when my Love and I watched a bible
archaeology documentary. Israel Finkelstein is a Jew himself, and he's
one of the ones who worked on the project. I think the documentary is <i>The Bible Unearthed</i>.
The men were honestly trying to see whether the bible was historically
accurate. They explored both archaeological and historical evidence.
Both types of evidence testified against the bible. When I watched,
though, I wasn't very convinced about their claim that Deueteronomy
wasn't written until the reign of Josiah and that most things weren't
written until during the Jews' Babylonian captivity. I didn't see how
they were coming up with that. Either it wasn't detailed enough to
satisfy me, or I missed something.<br />
<br />
A short time later,
all this still before being introduced to Thomas Paine's shattering of
the Messianic prophecies, I read that the two creation accounts in the
opening chapters of Genesis were written by two different authors and at
two different times (the latter of the the two during the Babylonian
captivity but which appears first in Genesis). Well, that certainly
explains why there are contradictions in the two accounts.<br />
<br />
I guess I still wasn't fully convinced. However, when I more recently read Paine's <i>Age of Reason</i>
(it's addressed in part 2), he used only the bible to prove the books
weren't written until the captivity, or at the very least, until after
there were ruling monarchies in Judah. He pointed at numerous proofs in
the bible itself. I could no longer ignore the facts at that point.
Outside historical evidence, archaeological evidence, and the bible's
own revelations within all prove, without a doubt, that the so-called
"books of Moses" weren't written until several hundred years after Moses
supposedly lived.<br />
<br />
Then there are prophecies that were
made and recorded to have failed, and a busting-at-the-seams plethora of
contradictions throughout both the "old testament" and "new testament."<br />
<br />
Perhaps
most importantly there are the numerous evidences that the Israelite
tribal god Yahweh is evil when we use our God-given reason and built-in
morality, but those of us brought up to believe in the bible push our
reason away and instead justify (or ignore as some people do) it all for
Yahweh/Jehovah. <br />
<br />
Still, there were two things that I
still wanted to check into, namely the biblical feasts/holidays and the
validity of the book of Revelation. <br />
<br />
I didn't look
into the weekly sabbath, because during my recent search into the origin
of the 7-day week—an unrelated search—I found information on the
Babylonian lunar sabbath, of which there are four a month, and that also
explained to me why there are some Christians who teach the lunar
sabbath doctrine (which someone asked me about a few years ago, and I'd
said the sabbath was a weekly ordinance, not an ordinance related to the
lunar cycle). <br />
<br />
Passover, I figured was easy, because
it deals with firstborn human sacrifice and/or animal sacrifice. I
researched it, anyway, and found evidence that such a practice by the
polytheistic cultures (Canaanite and Amorite) before the supposed (but
likely made-up, at least the way it is written in the bible) biblical
exodus from Egypt. The Zukru festival was very much like Passover and
Unleavened Bread. Instead of brushing a doorpost with blood to protect
the inside inhabitants, the lamb sacrifices were done outside, and blood
was brushed on everyone's foreheads. Two kinds of bread were made to
eat by the people and the gods, barley bread and mashed bread, and they
ate them with wine.<br />
<br />
Rosh Hashanah (Trumpets) is rooted
in the Babylonian Akitu harvest festival, which like the Jews' holiday,
is also a new year's celebration, as the Babylonians also had their year
divided into two parts with two new years. <br />
<br />
Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur has its origins in the Babylonian and Assyrian Kuppuru atoning ceremony. <br />
<br />
The
Feast of Booths or Feast of Ingathering (Sukkot) came from the
Canaanites' autumn harvest festival, during which they'd stay in
temporary shelters in the fields until they harvested their crops. <br />
<br />
The
final editors of the bible, the priests, while in Babylon, added in the
new themes they wanted these feasts to apply to, like staying in booths
to remember the wilderness exodus, for example. It's no different than
what the Roman Catholic Church has done with other pagan holidays and
the traditions and symbols that go along with them, applying them to
Jesus (like saying Christmas is his birthday, that Easter celebrates the
resurrection and that the eggs symbolize new life in him, etc.).<br />
<br />
El
was a Canaanite god, his consort being Asherah, their children
including Baal and Anat (Astarte/Ashtoreth). El was the head of a
pantheon of gods and was a creator god with a loving nature. Yahweh was
a god of war and storms and such. P's manuscripts (the ones written by
the priests in Babylon) and J's manuscripts ("Jah," for Yahweh, which
refers to another author who only wrote about Yahweh) contradict each
other so that it's unclear whether Abraham knew El as Yahweh, too, or
not, as it is later said to Moses that his fathers did not know him as
Yahweh but only El. Either way, the gods are blended by the time of the
final editing of the books. <br />
<br />
It may be that the book
of Revelation was written with ideas borrowed from the Sibylline books
(not to be confused with the Sibylline chronicles) which were written
BCE by an oracle. Other books have borrowed from these, too. We cannot
know for sure, because there are no known copies of the Sibylline books
now in existence. The Kalki Purana, which wasn't written until
probably the third or fourth century CE, may have been written after
Revelation (if Revelation was indeed written in the first century) but
probably borrowed from the Sibylline books, since there is evidence so
many prophets from various cultures borrowed from those books. In the
Kalki Purana a future avatar of Vishnu, known as Kalki, is prophesied to
come on a white horse, flashing his scimitar and to conquer the wicked,
before setting up the peaceful paradise Shambala. <br />
<br />
You
know, I've walked around for a few years now, feeling guilt about a
couple different things I wrote about in my Ten Commandments book,
because as a moral person, I felt they were wrong, but I stayed true to
the bible teaching and defended Yahweh, justifying for this non-existent
war god his horribly wicked commands. <br />
<br />
I also have
planned on writing another book, which has been in the works for a few
years now, and one of the topics was going to be about the technology of
God, man, and animals. I was going to systematically show how
modern-day scientific knowledge and technology proves how all those
far-out stories in the bible can be true and scientifically explained.
Now I know that all those stories originated with older cultures, and
the Jews just copied and then made themselves out to be better than
everyone else, a special race. I will still write a book, and a lot of
the information that I've obtained from sources over the last few years,
as well as my exhaustive notes, will still be used. It was not all for
naught. I just certainly will not be praising the bible as the "word
of God." <br />
<br />
There's so much more I'd love to write about and will, in time, but this will suffice for now.<br />
<br />
I'm
free from the lies. I no longer have to defend an evil god that doesn't even exist.
I can trust my reason and stop defending the bible as the
word of God when it doesn't deserve it and is a disgrace to the real
God, if there is one. I can all the more easily reject any "revealed
religion" that comes from men. If it's not revealed to me, I shouldn't
have to believe it, because to do so isn't trusting God, but rather the
man/men who claimed it was revealed to him/them. <br />
<br />
I
still haven't come down completely from the outrage that so many, even
the UCG that I thought was so mild, cling to Herbert Armstrong. I just never knew it, because I stayed away from the churches until toward the end, and when I did go, my own beliefs clashed with the beliefs the people collectively held.<br />
<br />
But it
just goes to show that when we're guilty of not doing our research, we
enslave ourselves to men. That's what those people choose to do when
they honor that man (which is unbelievable to those of us who have done
our research on him). But I have been guilty of following the bible,
which is following many lying men and men of wicked imaginations. I now
renounce it, and I encourage you to do your own research and see what
conclusions you draw.MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8535457829957250853.post-7886429782493878892014-12-18T21:22:00.000-08:002015-06-10T11:00:28.324-07:00If I Was God...#2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5PhRb-qrZB4/VJOukM4OUfI/AAAAAAAAEhs/LhNYcrmjTH8/s1600/godseries2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5PhRb-qrZB4/VJOukM4OUfI/AAAAAAAAEhs/LhNYcrmjTH8/s1600/godseries2.jpg" height="300" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
If I was God, I would not feel the need nor desire to murder my son in wrath, much less in premeditation, in order to forgive my children of a transgression.<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
To believe in the Genesis version of the Eden story, starring Adam and Eve, El/God, and the talking serpent, means believing that the transgression of Adam and Eve was eating a fruit from a tree that would give them the knowledge of good and evil like God possessed. There are many problems with this story, of course, and to read more of my comments on this, check out my posts from my retired blog (which I will soon repost on this blog):</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://taratorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-tree-story-is-impossible.html">Part 1: Why the Tree Story is Impossible</a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://taratorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-tree-story-is-impossible-part-2.html">Part 2: Why the Tree Story is Impossible</a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://taratorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-liar-and-murderer-from-beginning-plus.html"><br /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://taratorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-liar-and-murderer-from-beginning-plus.html">Liar and Murderer From the Beginning</a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://taratorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/knowledge-of-good-and-evil-good-or-bad.html"><br /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://taratorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/knowledge-of-good-and-evil-good-or-bad.html">Knowledge of Good and Evil: Bad or Good?</a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
But for the purpose of this post, let's assume Adam and Eve were God's children, and they truly did something bad to upset him. Is it moral to impute their transgression onto all their posterity? One of my all-time favorite chapters in the entire bible is Ezekiel 18. Of course Ezekiel was written a bit later than the first few books of the bible, and it certainly was written from a viewpoint of advanced morality. Ezekiel 18—please do read it or review it—teaches that a son should not die for the sins of his father. Never mind that many times God or his supposed servants do indeed punish sons or other relatives of those who have angered him or his servants. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And then is it right to punish a separate person entirely, one who supposedly did nothing wrong, so that you don't take your wrath out on the person who <i>did</i> do what was wrong? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So if one of my children did something to anger me and that broke one of my rules, would it be ok if I took another child, <i>even if that innocent child agreed to be punished for the guilty</i>, and punished him or her? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I have no earthly idea I didn't reach this simple and obvious conclusion for so many years, until this year, but I see now more than ever how strongly people can be brainwashed, even when I was one who very carefully compared God and his supposed Firstborn and then man and a man's firstborn (which no doubt did lead to questions that bothered me, but never this one). </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I don't feel any need to murder my son to forgive anyone who transgresses against me. Why does God, if he's so good? Why am I so much more loving and forgiving than the bible god? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If I was God, I would go to extremes to avoid killing any of my children. I certainly wouldn't murder my own perfect son to appease some anger-management problem I possessed so that I felt I could forgive other children or anyone else.<br />
<br />
For a video demonstration that further makes my point, done by the talented DarkMatter2525, see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWAUhadJzTk">Christian Justice</a> on Youtube. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
This has been #2 in the "If I Was God..." series at TruthSearching.com. MotherTarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903535973645217080noreply@blogger.com