TEMPLATE ERROR: Invalid data reference post.canonicalUrl: No dictionary named: 'post' in: ['blog', 'skin', 'view']

Friday, April 18, 2014

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariottini posted an article on his blog on a papyrus fragment the seems to refer to Jesus' wife. Check this out.

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Saturday, April 5, 2014

▶ Science of Innovation: Bionic Limbs - YouTube

I am so glad UC Berkeley is doing continuing research and development in the field of cybernetics and bionics. When I was a student there, it was not called bionics on campus, but things have actually changed since the 1990's. It was called mechatronics or robotics. It is all those things and combines bioengineering, electrical & mechanical engineering, computer science, and physics, and several other disciplines. I'd like to get back into this stuff.

▶ Science of Innovation: Bionic Limbs - YouTube

Return to front page

View blog reactions

▶ 50 Reasons Muhammad Was NOT a Prophet in Under Five Minutes - YouTube


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Friday, April 4, 2014

Five books of S. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, against heresies : Irenaeus, Saint, Bp. of Lyons, d. ca. 202 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


Return to front page

View blog reactions

The Movie Noah was Based on Gnosticism, not Genesis | ALAN KURSCHNER

I haven't seen the movie yet, but this is an insightful article about the movie Noah. It is interesting to see that the observation that the movie has gnostic tendencies.

The Movie Noah was Based on Gnosticism, not Genesis | ALAN KURSCHNER

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Saturday, March 22, 2014

FacePlant of the Day - Christian Apologetics: Hitler can't help you. - YouTube

I've had an epiphany. I have discovered a different way to respond to videos that I get from YouTube, like the one that is the subject to this post. From now on posts like these may be done this way in the future. YouTube has the feature of captioning videos for you and there are browser add-ins for Chrome and FireFox that will allow you to download or copy/paste the captions creating a transcript - complete with time stamps. It occurred to me that I don't just have to provide a video but I can directly interact with the transcript. Unfortunately, the transcript is not perfect. I've made some corrections to it where I could, but it's still serviceable.

This post is about video posted by nonstamp collector in attempt to counter Christian apologetic arguments that attack the lack grounding of objective morality in atheistic worldviews. His attempt is a cringe-worthy faceplant. Interacting with the transcript is almost watching it in slow motion. The video is provided below and in the following transcript my comments will be in red font.

I'd like to address a Christian argument that I've heard many times
it's a certain way of framing the moral argument for God and is particularly
interesting to me in that unbeknownst to the person using it
actually refute itself in a unique way yep
I'll show you what I mean now in order to accurately present and discuss from
talking about here I'm gonna quote verbatim from a Christian podcast
without telling you long quoting because I think that it'll be familiar enough
that you recognize is something that many people said so
choosing just one person to pin this on is what I want to do but for the sake of
accuracy I will quote directly
now forget to speak at the start of nature this he was on the radio at the

Interesting enough, the video author sets up a decent introduction and very clearly lays out what his goal is: refute a popular Christian argument against atheism. Let's see how his argument holds up. 

what do you think about that example the concentration camps have Nazi Germany
does our moral revulsion at those concentration camps
is that because there's an objectively real fact about the matter

the treating   people that way is wrong say Hitler had won the war

and we now live in a society where because of that and the propaganda

ever believe that anti-semitism was good and gassing jews was fine
with that mean then that that was simply the morality that we accept

is morality simply at the end of the day

what society thinks about a matter or would still be wrong

even though nobody thought it was wrong would actually still be wrong because we

can be wrong about moral facts

and if that's the case does that suggest that there is a moral dimension that is

in part a natural world

that somehow transcended could this be the evidence

for God now to the speaker's credit

I have even used this argument and I think of it as a sound argument because it points out that without an objective moral standard there is no logic we can use to conclude that Hitler was wrong. Without that standard, it's just our opinion versus his and the argument forces you to think about if there is a circumstance where Hitler could have been right if the majority of humanity agreed with him. 

its word is a series of questions but since we've all heard this word

less rhetorically and more as a series of facts and conclusions

I'm gonna take the liberty of interpreting the quote as an argument

for the Christian God is the answer

okay it was on the Christian podcast so that's where I'm coming from

because I say I've heard exactly this kind have what if hitler had one

as a very strongly argued case for what amounts to Christian theism for many


I would agree that the God of the Bible is the only resolution of this argument. 

so the Hitler things very interesting ask you to imagine how society

excusing or agreeing with the holocaust I'd imagine anyone doing it

in our real world today obviously the pretty much an extremist and certainly

an outcast

what kinda crazy awful dystopian world with this be if we all thought that way

well let's investigate the hypothetical scenario

This will be amusing. 

in little more detail the first thing the picture is that in that world

we wouldn't condemn hitler for having done what he did that's a basic part the

analogy I know but it's worth stating again as a starting point

this is a world in which anyone who condemned or criticize him during the

Holocaust would be the social outcast a lunatic fringe or extremist

Hitler would be admired by many in the same way as america might reveal Lincoln

or the British might remember churchill even prominent and respected people

would look back and admired Hitler for having carried out the Holocaust

try to imagine hearing Hitler being praised as a hero the 20th century by

someone that you admire

The thing is that  even if the world was that backward that off, Hitler was still wrong and so would be all of us if we agreed with him.

now I'd say that not everyone would be an enthusiastic fan if hitler

the extent the killing might still be off-putting to some but the illustration

does ask is to imagine that even the lilly livered bleeding-heart lefty

liberals that the world would at the very least

have an acceptance of the holocaust having been carried out it would have

their supporters having been the right thing to do at the time

even if they wouldn't want such a thing to ever happen again remember

the review of Hitler any more critical than that would put people over the line

is being considered an extremist

at odds with the prevailing moral sense this imagine society

every bit as much as the opposite is true in the real world so everyone would

think that the holocaust had been rights

and at very least necessary and justified that would be the nature the

propaganda that the speaker mentioned

which would most likely be based around an argument that the Jews had deserved a


I think the video author understands the consequences of  such a world and does not like it as much as any Christian.

the fax packing that I might be a bit tenuous but the narrative would be

something along the lines of how back in the early 20th century

things have gotten so bad or about to take such a serious turn for the worse

the drastic violent action against Jews had become appropriate

and murdering the mall had become at the very least unnecessary course of action

and that hitler had done the right thing in following through on

now I understand appointed the speakers making because to me this does feel like

a less moral world

Definitely not the kind of world I would want. If people thought that Hitler was on the right track they might want to follow his example. I'm sure me, and a lot of people I care about would be on that undesirable list. 

whatever meaning you get to that word it just seems wrong a whole society

celebrating or even excusing the Holocaust simply because hillard one

does seem to violate something very basic uneven primal

and as a speaker suggested does that indicate that they are incontrovertible

moral facts

in condemning the Holocaust as we do in the real world we drawing on an

objective morality that is never subject to human opinion

or is a moral version to the holocaust something that we came up with ourselves

and perhaps partially because Hitler did in fact lose

but it seems deeper than something that we discover invent doesn't it

so where does a morality have its foundation outside of humanity

maybe in a god well

I've said before in previous videos I'm happy to go there

i'm open to being convinced but as yet I'm not conclusively convinced

and despite the thought has gone into these questions across the centuries and

recently as much as I'd like an answer on resigned to sitting in the I don't

know camp on the issue of objective morality

So, the author of the video agrees that objective morality has to have grounding outside of humanity, but he is unwilling to call that ground God but does he have better alternate explanation for how we know Hitler was wrong?

but this illustration and the questions that it raises for certain things that I

do know

this dystopian world that we're looking at is a hypothetical

as remarkable and discomforting as it is doesn't look strangely familiar

do we not actually live in such a world now a world of people looking back into

history in making excuses for massive genocides

justifying the murders by arguing that they were necessary

and rather than condemning the people who carried them out instead looking

back to them with admiration

and reflecting that the people who were wiped out had actually deserved it

we should be very familiar these are exactly the kinds a response to the

Christian apologists key when confronted with the barbaric Old Testament

Alternate answer?  Nope. Instead, NonStampCollector tries to argue that Christians pretend that the Conquest of Canaan told to us in the Old Testament can be equated with what Hitler did. He asks why Christians don't condemn them but condemn the Holocaust.


carried out on their gods orders and with its help

and in his name all yes I'll tell you genocide and mass murder a bad

absolutely objectively immoral that's how come we know that the Holocaust was


it's just it in say the case of the armies of the is our lights going

through the promised land killing every single man woman and child in a possibly

code is a invaded city after city

genocide was actually Morally justified and necessary

the people who were killed did actually deserve it souls okay to totally destroy


it was the right thing to do with the time the military leaders who carried

out those invasions were actually heroic

people to be remembered in admired not condemned so much so that you can even

read to kids bedtime stories and sing them little songs about the heroism of

these particular genocidal mass murderers

there's nothing immoral and what they did see these genocides have to be

viewed in the correct context to be properly understood Marley

and if you see a problem with any aspect of them the net can only mean the you're

looking at them

out of context I do you heard all this before haven't you

faithful believes excuse the hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of deaths

carried out by violent extremist Israeli military leaders as having been uniquely

justified and necessary

the right thing to do at the time perfectly Morally permissible

This would be a viable counter argument if the destruction of the Canaanites, Ammonites, and the others was not genocide. It was judgement for the evil done by their cultures. Things like child sacrifice. Idol Worship. And things that we would not want in our culture any more than Nazis. Recall that God said that their time was not up and gave them more than 400 years before the Israelites came and replaced them in their land. It was revealed to Abraham that this would happen in Genesis 15:12-21.It was morally permissible because Israel was acting as an agent of God. It was not genocide. Hitler was not acting as an agent of God. Recall that God also blessed Israel. Anyone who tries to destroys Israel works against God.

but on a second in the hypothetical hitler analogy out we asked to imagine a

society that excuses millions of deaths as having been justified and necessary

and to ponder what a messed up idea of morality would take for society to do


the hypothetical hitler analogy mentions the power propaganda and asked where the

military victory in propaganda could be all that would be necessary to twist

people's thinking

towards having them agree the genocide was moral

quelled apparently the answer to that question is yes yes they are

just ask a billion or so Christians now tell you what they've had drilled into

them repeatedly

that invading city after city and utterly destroying everything in them

that breathes

it was the right thing to do and was completely justified

The problem is that the cringe-worthy thought that the conquest of  Canaan is the same as the Holocaust

I'll go along with its explanation it look with horror and disdain at a

hypothetical society that

without a firm foundation for its morality could have its morality swayed

by mere propaganda towards
yeah excusing genocide Christianity

Maybe the video author should look up "genocide" and explain how he's getting that viewpoint.

you are and always have been that group that's been brainwashed by propaganda

into excusing barbaric acts of war and violence

you don't see it do you you ask us to imagine a culture that excuses and

justifies appalling injustice cruelty and violence

without realizing that you are describing yourselves

you paid a startling picture a population that's had its morality

hijacked by the victory

and propaganda the sadistic mass murderer well you are a population that

has had its morality hijacked

Nope. Where is the "injustice"?  Where is the "sadist"? He offers no example. No proof.  Nothing at all in the war Israel waged in Canaan mirrors the Holocaust nor the war the Nazis brought to the world.

by the Victorian propaganda have a long list a sadistic mass murderers

men who simply the hitler's have their own day just for the different ideology

in less effective weaponry

Okay, he's just trying to appeal to emotion now. In the next section he tries to take the argument and replace some words to make it about Israel conquering Canaan instead of the Nazis and the Holocaust.

right allow me to replace just a few words the example to demonstrate

where'd you dare Christianity fits into this

safety is our lights had won the promise land wars

and we now lived in a society where because of that and the propaganda

everyone believed the destroying all the season came in had been good

and that utterly destroying everything that breeds had been fine

with that mean then that that was simply the morality that we accept

is morality simply the end of the day what society thinks about a matter

all with the invasion and conquering the promise land still be wrong

even know nobody thought it was wrong

does mr. revulsion at those blood baths

is that because there's an objectively real fact about the matter

the treating people that way is wrong

Here the transcript has some mistakes but again he equates the war that Israel fought with genocide and that can't be substantiated. 

eitan calling bullshit on this having Christian apologist imply that not

basing morality firmly in season as they do

could lead to a terrible moral degeneration into an unrecognizable

world of moral chaos

in which even genocide could be excuse and tolerated cheese apologists

The Bible does not condone genocide on any level. Why can isn't there any proof of that given? 

imagine that I'm also calling bullshit

even more emphatically on something that I guarantee is going through the minds

of none too few believers who listen to this right now

and the very thing that will no doubt dominate the discussion in the comments

Straw Man. Christians are not accepting his definition of  Canaan's conquest as an example of genocide, and he argues against that. 

even though not on the head right here

it what happens whenever a nonbeliever implies that the murderous violence and

brutality the Old Testament

are quote immoral the Theiss will demand that we name the standard by which we're

judging the morality the Bible

the implication is that as non theists we can't because we apparently don't

have one because we disbelieving the only possible thing that could qualify

as one

therefore our morality must be this flimsy subjective cultural negotiable

thing that shift all over the place at the whim society

so we lose and we have to stop making any kind ethical or moral judgment on

the content to Scripture

because our moral judgments have a poor foundation or no foundation

Exactly! What rebuttal does he offer to say to show that this conclusion is an error?

well look if you argue that way let me tell you this very clearly

once and for all whatever bases a non-believer has for calling out the

actual the Old Testament genocidal war lord is appalling barbaric any moral

its automatically a better and more reliable standard than the one that

you're using to justify them

because yours is entirely circular

you're using the Bible and the morality inherent in the Bible

to judge the morality of the Bible

Just because you think that God has ordered genocide or barbaric actions, does not mean God did.  It shows that you don't understand the Bible.As human being you cannot judge the morality of the Bible because it's not just the story of people and what they did, but even more primary of God and why things happened the way that they have.

using the god that order genocide as the standard by which you judge the morality

of genocide

is exactly like someone in that hypothetical example justifying his

actions by saying that they are okay on hitler's moral standard

would you accept that logic of course he wouldn't

the whole point illustration was to point out how bad a basis for morality

that kinda thing he's

and its all you've got the Bible is the only thing that you could really turn to

justify the genocide so isn't it

Hitler cannot help you there. Think about it. By definition equating God as as standard for anything must be greater than Hitler. Equating God and Hitler is extremely silly. 

you know why because the Bible present a morality that justifies genocide


not much else in civilized society does anymore does it

You mean like no justification for abortions?  No...wait....

look bring up hitler's attempted genocide or those us down on our pol pot

does not play out in the favor by Christian view of objective morality

against an atheistic or secular one

At this point in the video I was wondering if and when he would ever get around to explaining where his view for objective moral value come from in his secular worldview.

you guys worship a God that you claim order to encourage kings and military


to do things that hitler and those guys in a way simply perfected

Still waiting for an explanation for how the Bible condones and commands genocide. 

Moses David getting and Joshua you all gave it a pretty good shot when you


and perhaps you ought to admit to yourself that if they were recorded in

Scripture is having killed as many people as Hitler managed to

you wouldn't all the sudden decide that they were evil mass murderers

you did my them no less than you do now and you praise God for the mighty power

he displayed in destroying his enemies so thoroughly

War is not murder. In all his ranting there is not a single explanation for how he is justified to equate Moses, Joshua, or David to Hitler. I'm not buying it. 

before you start lecturing the secular world about where we need to look to

establish a basis for morality

why don't you come up with one that is in fundamentally hypocritical and


the illustration draws upon this innate sense of morality that we all seem to

have and get us to think about where it comes from

So, let's be clear. He has no explanation for where human morality comes from or what objective standard on which it rests only that we do do have an objective standard. Further he does not believe that Christians have a right point this out because God orders genocide in the Bible although he cannot demonstrate that it was genocide. I'm convinced....not at all. 

if you're a Christian believer let me encourage you in all sincerity

to just admit to yourself that your commitment to this book

puts you at odds with your own inherent Center morality

in this video with many look to genocide because that's what the quote brought up

but just have a quick look at some of the other disgusting inhumanity that

fills the pages of this book that you've been taught to consider a wholly

give credit to that since you have that tells you that no matter the context

hurling rocks an adulteress young woman until she dies as a result ovett

is nothing less an obscene barbaric cruelty

then think about how you actually feel about burning people to death

where does that deep in a conviction come from the tells you that that kinda

thing is wrong

was it placed there by God the same God

explicitly ordered that people do these things to each other

are you seriously gonna argue that even if the rally is grounded in a god

Several problems. Adultery was a capital crime in Ancient Israel. Just because you think that it should not be, does not mean that it is an immoral punishment. Also not just one person was supposed to be executed but both people.  Further, I can think of no place in the Old Testament where a method of execution included burning people to death. I think he should stop confusing wrong things churches did in later centuries with what the Bible actually told us to do.

this God the judeo-christian God is clearly bullshit

one simply doesn't need to have a well-defined alternative explanation

other bases a morality

to know that this one is an absolute failure one simply needs to be honest

with themselves

This part really amazes me. He just admitted that he can't counter the argument but throws up his hands and says that he doesn't need explain why Hitler was wrong to conclude that he was. In other words he wusses out.  Where is his honesty?  He has presented nothing of value. He can't explain this. So instead he tries to tug on heart strings about "genocide" being commanded in the Bible but fails to demonstrate that there was any genocide.

I'll conclude by once again suggesting that we leave this insane fundamentally

confuse book

outta the 21st century discussion a morality and ethics

it's part of the problem not the solution because as we can see

if there's a world view that leads people to excuse and condone

appallingly cruel behavior it's not atheism

its theism

Yeah, it's not the Bible that is confused. The Bible does have an explanation for  where our objective moral standard comes from. The video's author isn't all bad. At least he recognizes that objective moral standards do exist. He isn't willing to argue that Hitler would have been right if the majority of people agreed with him.  So that's something. But unfortunately he isn't honest enough to admit that he has no alternative explanation other than God to explain why those moral standards exist. He seems perfectly happy to steal the Christian moral standard and pretend it didn't come from God. Good luck with that. I will be praying the NonStampCollector because God is more than able to help him up from this faceplant.

Christian Apologetics: Hitler can't help you. - YouTube

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Friday, March 21, 2014

Anti-Gravity Wheel? - YouTube


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Friday, February 21, 2014

Logical Fallacies via Tumblr

I recently found the above graphic on Tumblr. It attempt to show how Christians often commit logical fallacies. I think it is important to recognize that some of the examples are truly bad and should not be used. Others need to be understood. Let's look at each one and see if the examples make sense. 

Special Pleading

"Everything has a cause but God"

The reason why non-believers think saying such a thing is special pleading  is because they think that God is like every other created thing in existence and Christians are merely trying to assert that we can think of God as a special case. This is not what Christians are advocating. If God was a created being, then who ever made God would be God and worthy of worship and glory. The buck has to stop somewhere or you have infinite regression. The universe is not eternal but had a beginning therefore it can't be UNCAUSED.Something or Someone came before it. That cannot be avoided or ignored. Dr John Lennox dealt with this problem.

Emotional Press:

"Jesus suffered on the cross to save you miserable wretches from eternal torment."

I don't see this as playing on emotions. This is just telling the truth. Not one of us is more of a wretched sinner than anyone else. We have all failed to meet the standards of God and your own. That is undeniable. Someone has to pay for that. You can pay for it in hell or you could accept that Jesus paid the penalty for your sins on the cross.

Knocking Down Straw Men:

"Evolution is like a hurricane assembling a fully functional 747 from parts."

What we have here is a failure to communicate. The way evolution is now  understood and explained is not chaotic chance driving the evolutionary process. This is why it's bad idea to raise this argument. It is a straw man. The analogy does not work. 

Stretching the Truth

"Those trapped miners were saved by a miracle from  God."

Such a statement stretching is not stretching the truth. In order to make that charge, you have demonstrate that the saving of the miners was not miraculous and that God did not do it. That is not possible. 

Running From Contrary Evidence

God created the universe, so it can't be 14 billion years old. 

The Bible does not say that the universe is not 14 billion years old. This is another argument Christians should not use.

The True Christian.

Those atheist arguments don't have any effect on me. 

I do not see how this argument says anything about true Christianity. The reason why atheistic arguments  against God would have no effect on a believer is because they are bad arguments.

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Debunking Christianity: The Ten Commandments of Rational Debate

Now if people could just follow this list

Debunking Christianity: The Ten Commandments of Rational Debate

Return to front page

View blog reactions

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Dear Christian, Would You Kill Your Kid for God?

JM Green has recently posted an article on  Debunking Christianity that attempts to discredit Christianity and Judaism using the story of God telling Abraham to kill his son as a sacrifice. This is one of his best written papers I have read on this site. He attempts to actually use the text and respond to real objections to his argument that a Bible believing Christian would raise. However, he still faceplants in his attempt. A failure. My comments are in red. 

Christian parent, I have a question for you.
Would you be willing to murder your child to prove your loyalty to your boss?
Imagine that your boss came to you and said, “Look, I know you are a good
employee and all, but I really need to know for sure that you are 100%
loyal to my company.  So, next Saturday, I want you to take your son on a
camping trip, and while you are in the mountains I want you to cut his
throat and burn his body, to honor me as your boss.“
You would look at your boss like he was insane, and refuse to do it –
right?  I hope that I am right in assuming that all of you would refuse
such a vile request.

I have two small chiidren: 7 and 4 and no way would I kill my children just to placate a person who just signs my paycheck. I could always get another job but I cannot replace my children. 
Let’s up the stakes a little. What if – instead of your boss – it was your
god who told you to kill and sacrifice your child - to demonstrate your
faith? Would you do it, or not?

Which god would that be. My God made the universe including earth, Me, you, and my children. That God redeemed me from sin and death. That God is not just my boss but my master. Therefore this is more than just a "yes/no" question. If you think your God is asking you to murder your own children, it is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. More on this later. 

Again, I would love to think that most of my Christians would refuse to do it,

but I suspect that right now, some of you are experiencing some mental
dissonance; feeling uneasy about saying “no” to your god, and hedging
with thoughts like, “Of course, God would never ask me to do something
like that.” 

Wouldn’t he?  It’s exactly what the Bible claims that Yahweh asked Abraham to do. 
your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and go to the
land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on one of the
mountains, which I will show you.”  Genesis 22:2
As Christian, aren’t bound to obey whatever command your god was to give
you?  Doesn’t your god’s will supersede your own desires?  So why are
you balking?  

Of course I am bound to obey whatever God commands and my will does not even come close to superseding God's will. The next question is would God command me to do something like that just because God commanded Abraham to do it? Nope. God commanded Moses to lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt, does that mean I am commanded to lead Israel out of Egypt? Nope.  Would a God that would make the fooling commandments also command me kill my own children?

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. - 1 Timothy 5:8
Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. - Ephesians 6:4   

Let me hand back to you all the standard responses that Christians offer: 
“Are you qualified to judge God?”
“His ways are not our ways; his thoughts are higher than ours.”
“God must have a good reason for wanting this, and it will all make sense in heaven one day.”
Still not willing to say that you would kill your kid for your god?  Oh ye of little faith!
The mental struggle and tension you are feeling is a conflict between what
your innate love, empathy, and reason tells you (murdering my child is
horribly wrong) and what your religion tells you (obeying my god is
always right).

If you are honest you have to admit that there is no loop hole in the Bible that could be used for justifying a parent to murder his or her own children. NOTHING. The lack of faith here is Green's. Green does raise a valid point: Why was God justified in his commandment of Abraham and why was Abraham justified in obeying him? For Abraham's part obeying God is always the way to go. No where does the Bible say that this was easy for him, but he trusted God so completely. 
Can you see how insidious it is that your religion and Bible present
something as vile as child-murder and human sacrifice as good, when
commanded by your god?  Why then do so few Christians seem bothered when
they read, or hear sermons about this story?

Because we understand it better than Green does. 
Hebrews 11:17 holds up Abraham as a hero of faith – someone to be admired:
It was by faith that Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice when God was
testing him. Abraham, who had received God’s promises, was ready to
sacrifice his only son, Isaac…”
“But,” some of you will no doubt be saying, “He didn’t actually go through with it, God was only testing him.”
True, but according to the story, he was in the process of carrying out the
murder of his son, until Elohim had an angel stop him at the last

Abraham was fully willing to murder his own child, to please his god, and the Bible praises him for it. 
Let that sink in.

If the point is that God is not worthy of such a sacrifice then Green does not know or understand Abraham's relationship with God. That's not surprising if you have no relationship to God of your own.  There is much more to say but let's save those comments in rebuttal to his arguments
As to the ‘testing’, why in the world would a god who know all things
(including the hearts of men, according to the Bible and Christian
belief) need to carry out such a sadistic test?  An all-knowing god
would know exactly what Abraham would do already, so it would be a
pointless exercise.

It was not a test to see if Abraham was loyal or worthy. God had already declared that Abraham was righteous.  The point was to give other people the picture and example of what true Faith looks like. The point wasn't to show God what Abraham was made of but to show him and all those who would hear of Abraham's faith. 
Hebrews 11:19 speculates that Abraham was willing because he believed that his
god would raise Isaac back from the dead, after he killed him.  It is
quite possible that a deranged mind might rationalize the act in this
way, but it does nothing to remove the horror and immorality of it.

Green is forgetting several things. First, Isaac was promised to Abraham. And God promised to bless Abraham and the entire world through Isaac. But Isaac was not born until Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah was in her 90's - pointing to Isaac's birth being nothing but a miracle. Added to that Abraham had been waiting 25 years for that promised to be fulfilled. Given that God had kept his promise of a son born of miraculous birth, Abraham was more than reasonable in believing that if God commanded him to kill Isaac that God would raise him from the dead. Nothing immoral there. Everything else God had said was true, why would this be different. Just basic logic. Again, I would not kill my children because God would not tell me to do it.
The other justification that believers offer for the disgusting story is this:
“It is a beautiful foreshadowing of how God would one day sacrifice his own son for our sins.”
Ah yes, a human sacrifice which was to be a beautiful foreshadowing of another human sacrifice… lovely!

Green does not realize how amazing a foreshadowing it is. According to Jewish tradition, Isaac was not a child at this time, but a grown man in his early thirties - like Jesus. There is the assumption that Isaac was a child many Christians make but nothing in the text says that. And like Jesus, Isaac could have stopped the situation himself, but did not. In Judaism, Isaac is thought of as the hero of the story not the victim. 
§       Do you think that it is right for human beings (especially children) to be used as mere objects - pawns -as a kind of twisted sermon illustration? 

     There is not a just a sermon illustration happening here. We get to see how much God loves us. God sacrificed his son for us and we didn't ask him to but needed him too. We needed a good picture of faith.

18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:18-25
      If you tried to murder your child in the name of religion, but stopped at
the last minute, what harm do you think that would do to your child’s
mental state and to your relationship with that child?
T  There is no evidence in the text of Isaac and Abraham's relationship was negatively impacted. I'm certain that Isaac had his own relationship to God and Isaac learned more about God and his father that day. I think it deepened his relationship. In Genesis 25:9 both Isaac and Ishmael buried Isaac suggesting that the three of them reconciled on good terms.

I regard the Bible’s celebration of a parent who is willing to murder his
child and offer him as a human sacrifice to be both immoral and evil.
Thestory is presented in such a way in Christianity, as to desensitize the
reader to the true horror of what is going on.  The reader’s loyalties
are directed away from the child-victim, and aligned to the perpetrator
(Abraham) and the instigator (Elohim).  This is dehumanizing, and a
perversion of morality.

That is very distorted view. The point was the God would provide his own sacrifice and not one of us would have to give up our own sons to pay for the sins of humanity. God does not require human sacrifice. The God man Jesus sacrificed his own life. It was not taken from him. 

There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer  - Deuteronomy 18:10
In closing, I offer this 1-minute video clip of the late Christopher Hitchens’ response to the Abraham/Isaac story:

 I can't comment on the video because for some reason the clip was not working on the original article when I first responded to this article.

Christian reader, if after viewing the clip, if you are more bothered by
Hitchen’s f-bomb than you are by the fact that your religion
romanticizes a parent being willing to murder his child, then I would
suggest that your moral values are seriously deficient.

Agreed. But the story is not about a parent being willing to murder his child. 
If you are troubled by the Abraham/Isaac story, and would not
be willing to kill your child to prove your faith, then
congratulations, you are more moral than the god you worship.  If this
is the case, then please ask yourself why you are worshipping such a

UM, no. The only reason why  this story of Abraham and Isaac could be troubling is if you did not understand it. If you reject Christ, you do not understand it. 
A god who would ask a parent to murder their child is not loving, moral,
or holy, and is certainly not worth of worship.  A book which promotes
such an immoral act disqualifies itself as a source for morality.  Why
not do the moral thing, and reject the Bible and it’s sadistic god?

What about a God who would sacrifice his son to save people he created who hate him and his son? How moral and just is that? I ask because it's the same God. It is not sadistic. It was not Abraham's conflict and suffering about sacrificing Isaac that brought God joy or pleasure. It was about Abraham's complete trust in God that he was willing to do whatever God told him to do. As a Christian, I should do the same. As a godless heathen one cannot understand that.

Written by J. M. Green

Keep praying for this guy.

Debunking Christianity: Dear Christian, Would You Kill Your Kid for God?

Return to front page

View blog reactions