knower777

Very nice of you to attack my personal beliefs, of which you have no knowledge, instead of addressing my post which proves the god of the bible is a blood-thirsty child murderer who supports race-based slavery. Congratulations on the attempt to change the subject, however weak or transparent the technique used may have been. Know when you do this, you do not argue with me. You argue against the bible and the verses within exactly as they read.

The point of the verses are as follows: 34: ...I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession; Here, Jehovah admits that he himself put a plague on a house. 37:....if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall; 39 ...if the plague be spread in the walls of the house; Here we learn that various skin diseases, represented by the word "leprosy" can infect the walls of a house, according to this allegedly "omniscient" god. 40 Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is ,.... Here this "omniscient" god informs us stones can also be infected with skin diseases, just like a house can and just like walls can. 42 And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; So the stones in the house, which MUST be infected with skin disease, or bacteria which infects flesh, must be replaced, according to Jehovah. 43 And if the plague come again, and break out in the house.... Jehovah states "if" the plague come again, after he already admitted he himself infected the house, walls and stones with bacteria that normally infects flesh, in verse 34. If Jehovah himself sent the plague as he admitted, why would he need to guess whether he would plague the house again? And why would a "loving" god infect his people with skin diseases in the first place, much less their houses, walls & stones? Then the ritual was totally pointless and unnecessary. The verses state: 48 And if the priest shall come in, and look upon it , and, behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered: then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed. *n 49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: Notice, the verses do not state the house, or walls or stone was already free of the "plague." The verse states " the plague hath not spread in the house." The text is clear. The house is not free of the plague. The plague simply has not spread further. The text then goes on to give a ritual of sympathetic magic, much like modern day pagans might use, to rid the house of the plague. So, to sum up: 1. Jehovah himself sent plague on the house (v34) 2. Jehovah claims diseases such as leprosy, which here can refer to skin ailments such as psoriasis or exzema, can infect houses, walls of houses and stones in the walls of the houses. How come an "omniscient" being such as Jehovah did not know skin diseases are transferred by virus and bacteria from flesh to flesh? Why does Jehovah stupidly think skin diseases can infect homes, walls and stones, even to the point of recommending these infected stones be replaced? 3. Since Jehovah claims to have sent this "plague" on the house in the first place, why does he then provide instruction on "if" the plague returns? If Jehovah sent the plague, surely he himself can cure it, without requiring stones be replaced or sprinkling the blood of dead birds. 4. It is exceedingly ignorant to tell people to sprinkle the blood of dead birds in houses to clear them of a plague which hasn't further spread. First of all, houses, walls and stones can not become infected with diseases like psoriasis or exzema, which means sprinkling the blood of dead birds is totally pointless and stupid instructions. Yet, Jehovah was too ignorant to know these things. So, as I said earlier, if you can believe these passages involving curing houses, walls and stones of leprosy and other skin diseases, you can certainly believe that donkeys and snakes can speak or that a man could be swallowed by a large fish and then be spit back out 3 days later.

Well I suppose if you can believe a house & clothes can have leprosy, that a leprosy infested house should be torn down and the blood of dead birds sprinkled 7 times would cure leprosy, as is clearly stated by the "Lord" in Leviticus 14: 33-57, then you could certainly swallow a tale about Jonah being swallowed then spit up 3 days later by a really big fish.

To see how "loving" this god is, we can always look to the bible to find examples: Leviticus 25:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. So here we have this "loving" god commanding (thou shalt have) us to buy, (of them shall ye buy) sell and own each other as possessions who can be willed to our children as an inheritance. This "loving" god plainly states we can even purchase children to keep as slaves. Bondmen and bondmaids are not merely indentured servants, because they could be owned for life. This god was so "loving" that in one command he institutes not only slavery amongst people, but also race-based slavery. Given that Hebrews could not be owned for life, but could be redeemed after 6 years, while non-Hebrews could be bought and owned for life, we have two separate rules for our slaves, depending on the race of the slave. Of course, this act was not loving enough, so we also find this "loving" god telling us to not covet our slaves and to give our slaves the Sabbath day off in the ten commandments. How utterly moral and "loving" can one be? So you are most definitely correct in saying the biblical concept of this god's "love" is definitely abrasive. We next find this "loving" god telling us to kill any children we may have who dare to talk back to us: Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. What could possibly be more loving than that? As a matter of fact, this god is so "loving" of children, he murders them every possible chance he gets: Genesis:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. Yes Virginia, "all inhabitants" includes defenseless little children. This "loving" god then kills all of the children of the earth, except for Noah's, in the flood story: Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: This god so "loves" children, he even commands Abraham to kill his own son. Now that's "love:" Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. This "loving" god then murders the first-born children of Egypt: Exodus 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. Next, this god shows his "love" by ordering Saul to kill all of the Amalekite children: I Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. The "loving" god of the bible is so "loving," in fact, he orders 42 children to be shredded and eaten by bears, simply for calling an old man "bald-head:" II Kings 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. Psalms 136 even praises the "mercy" this "loving" god showed by killing defenseless children: Psalms 136:10 To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever: This "loving" god even describes the happiness one can find by throwing babies against rocks: Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be , that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. We can even look to the facts of Roman slavery as it existed when Jesus walked the earth. In Rome, slaves could not own their own children. Slaves were stripped naked and auctioned in public. Raping a slave was a property crime, a misdemeanor, since slaves were legally considered the property of the slave owner. A slave owner could not be charged with rape at all if he raped his own slaves, since slaves were his property. The conditions of slaves in Rome were so bad, that entire armies beaten by the Romans would commit wholesale suicide on the battlefield, rather than be taken and held as slaves in Rome. Yet, nowhere in the New Testament do you hear Paul speak out against the evils of slavery as practiced in Rome. Paul actually tells one slave to go back to his master instead. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find Jesus speaking so much as a single word against the slavery of Rome. Because you see, such a "loving" god knew that money-changers in the temple were so much more important than slaves being raped or armies committing suicide to avoid becoming slaves in Rome. Now, I am not a god by any means. I am merely a human being who has made mistakes throughout my life. Yet, in the midst of my mistakes and the arguments I have had with other people I have known, not once have I killed the children of those I have opposed. Not once have I commanded that defenseless children should be murdered. Not once have I ever suggested that children who curse their parents should be put to death. Not once have I ever ordered other people to buy, sell and own human beings, including little children, as possessions which could be owned for life. Never would I order bears to rip 42 little children to pieces simply because they called an old man bald-head. Nor would I ever suggest one could find happiness in this life by dashing defenseless infants against rocks. It appears my ideas of love for humanity differ greatly from the "love" shown by the god of the bible. I hope there are many others here who agree. If the "loving" god of the bible were a human on this earth and committed the acts described above, I would hope we as humans would lock him up and throw away the key for the evil nature of the "love" this god has shown.