The website godandscience tries its best to show that god can be proven using science. But they also have other ridiculous arguments to show that atheists are not interpreting the bible correctly and this is when I stumbled across this brilliant line on my favourite pseudo-science website: "According to Richard Dawkins, the God of the Bible (Yahweh) is "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Are these claims a true representation of God's character or have Dawkins and other skeptics misinterpreted what the Bible says?"
So me actually having read the bible thought hang on this cant be a misrepresentation. So I decided to scroll as far as the first link simply titled "Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People?" to find out if I was horribly wrong in my assumption about our loving god of Christianity.
The author then tries to justify god's actions in an opening paragraph where he uses fantastic phrases like
however, two major areas which we humans have a difficult time reconciling -
God's love vs. God's righteousness. God is loving, but God's love requires God's
justice. As I discipline my three children when they disobey, God disciplines us
if we don't meet His requirements."
I was just wondering if he still has 3 children left? After all........wait luckily he saves himself with the next comment
"The problem for us is that we cannot keep all
of God's laws because of our selfishness and self-centeredness.
God would have been completely just and loving in destroying all of us for our
disobedience to Him. It is only through His extraordinary love and grace that we
are allowed into His presence."
So what the author has done here is use the god escape clause, which a lot of theists do not seem to understand. So let me explain here again. The God escape clause is as follows:
When you don't want to make a decision based on your doctrine, you don't make any decision. Then regardless of you outcome, be it either murder, death, discrimination, you simply say "its OK after all its gods will". This is the cowards view as well as the view of anyone that wants to discriminate. This view has been used by great murderous minds like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Paul Jennings Hill etc
So how does our author then justify mass killing in the name of god?
He uses the argument that god is justified in killing these people as they were evil. It is important to note here that the only text that we have that tells us these people were evil is the bible itself. Also our author tells us that no innocents were killed that every single person in these cities was a sinner. Again the reference we have is the bible. The author even goes on to point out that god was doing a favour by killing the children and babies.
"However, the Bible also indicates that children are incapable of making
moral choices, so that they are automatically rewarded with heaven.
So, in having babies killed, God is actually doing them a favor, since, if
they had grown up opposed to God, they would have gone to hell."
I am staring to wonder if the author of this text has all his marbles? But then I remember he is using the "god escape clause" so basically he is just not prepared to face the reality of what he is saying. But this then begs the question, why does the author still have 3 children, surely he could just use the "god escape clause" when they do something horrible like disrespect him?
The article then concludes that god is just and has to judge everyone. Showing us that heaven would not be a good place if everyone went there etc etc.
Oh hang on I forgot to point something out in the beginning of this article, the author has never shown the existence of god. So what this article is showing you is how to do anything and just say "hey its god will so it is OK to kill, murder and maim".
So was Dawkins right in his assessment of god? YES, NO CONTEST!
But, I would go further and say maybe he should be saying Christians are jealous and proud of it; they are petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freaks; they are vindictive, bloodthirsty
ethnic cleansers; they are misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,
genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic,
capriciously malevolent bullies. After all if you cant prove god and you are using god to justify your actions then this is what you are becoming.
For more godandscience see the link below