Dear Anonymous Part 2: Why Your God is NOT Love, and Why Hate Can be a Virtue

This is the second part of a series I am writing in response to a commenter on this blog post:
A Critique of Richard Dawikins and WL Craig

Dear Anonymous,

You claim I am "mad"--which I am not. My job is to educate, which is why I am here. As you say, you are "stuck" trying to make sense out of something written in the OT that is difficult to make sense of.  I am here to help you and others "make sense out of it". My education provided me with multiple explanations for biblical passages--something lay people are unaware of, as their pastors/priests usually only provide them with one, perhaps two explanations. I am here to make sense out of the nonsense by exposing it for what it is, and provide people with alternate explanations, and the knowledge of my religious studies. The bible is what you claim the Quran and the Mormon bible is--stories made up and handed down--which makes it possible that the battles, and many other events depicted in the bible never ever took place. Besides the fact that the Jews are well known for embellishing their texts and have admitted to doing so, the archeological evidence shows that the best explanation is that the battles depicted in the bible never happened. (See The Bible Unearthed) Unfortunately for Christians, this then puts the entire book into question.

If the OT is difficult to understand, and includes events that are difficult to explain as you say, and if we consider that the millions of Christians around the world cannot even agree as to the meaning of the text, your god, if he was real, certainly has not done a very good job of "revealing" himself to his followers. Remember, the Jews were enslaved by other groups of more powerful people, and had learned the attributes of their gods. When they were finally freed, they embellished the attributes of the gods they were familiar with, and created their own based on the gods of their captors.  This is why there are so many striking similarities between the stories of the Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian gods--and the stories of the Abrahamic gods, and contradictions and inconsistencies.  Add to that the New Testament--and what a mess!!  The fact that the stories are a mish mash of different gods from different cultures is a large part of the reason why the bible is so difficult to understand.

You claim I am a hater, so I would also like to explain that hate is not always a vice. Hate can be beneficial to survival. If we hate our enemies, we are more likely to survive being assaulted by them. If women hated their abusive husbands, they would be more likely to leave them, as opposed to staying with them and sometimes dying in the process. Hate can protect us, and yes, I do hate the molesters of little children, the abusers of women and others that intentionally hurt people, and I hate the Christian philosophy that promotes this type of behavior. I hate the Christian philosophy of believing we are "born sinners," and I hate the philosophy of "unconditional love" and "forgiveness" for any heinous deed--as heinous deeds do not deserve to be forgiven, and love is something that should be earned, and not just given to anyone. Unconditional love and forgiveness is why so many women are murdered every year by their "loving husbands"--because they kept forgiving them over and over again. People that love each other, do not beat them to death, and the women should not forgive them for beating them--they should hate them--and leave them for a better life.  Hate does not have to consume a person.  It is possible to hate someone and be quite logical at the same time.  I do not believe that suffering is necessary to learn anything or, as you and Mother Teresa seem to believe, to bring one "closer" to god. That is utter nonsense. What suffering does do however, is create false hope, in that somehow a magical man in the sky will make things better for them. This is why religion is popular with the oppressed. It gives them "false hope."  It is also contradictory to consider that your god is the cause of suffering (as EVERY decision is from the Lord, {Prov 16:33} and the Lord created evil {Isaiah 45:7}) and is also "all-loving"--how bizarre.  This idea promotes the view that abuse can coexist with love--which is not only false, it has resulted in too many people suffering needlessly.  If you love someone, then you do not abuse them.  The Christian concept of love is bizarre!

Furthermore, contrary to what most Christians believe, their god does not advocate "unconditional love. " In Deuteronomy 7:12, Yahweh makes it clear that he will only love his people, IF they follow all his laws and commandments. This is a CONDITIONAL statement. His love is CONDITIONAL to following his laws.  Therefore, even according to the Christian god, love is conditional.  However, Christians claim that love is unconditional--which is another inconsistency and contradiction in the bible. 

 What's more, according to the bible writers, they cannot keep straight what love is or what it means in the first place. Logic, when applied to the text reveals a god that is love, and not love at the same time--another contradiction.  For according to the text:

"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4

But then they go on to say:

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM A JEALOUS GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"  Exodus 20:5

Which is a contradiction.  In the logical form of Modus Tollens, the following is the conclusion drawn from the above passages:

IF god is love, THEN god is not jealous. God IS jealous.  Therefore god is NOT love.
Therefore, according to the bible writers, god is love, and god is not love--a contradiction.

According to you, Jesus loved "flawlessly," but Jesus did not love flawlessly when he told his followers to abandon their families to follow him. No--that is not love. He did not love flawlessly when he had his feet anointed with oil--when the money gained from selling that oil could have been used to feed a starving family. No--that is not "flawless" love either.  And if Jesus is Yahweh, then killing innocent babies and fetuses (as explained in this post) is not love either. There are many occasions when Jesus does not love flawlessly, but considering that according to the bible, god is not love and is love at the same time, this is one thing that is consistent with the text--and not consistent with the text at the same time.....how bizarre.

I am enjoying responding to your comments very much, and I hope that they will enlighten you and others, and turn you away from a bad philosophy that promotes moral laxity,  but I must go now. Stay tuned for part 3.