Christianity as an Evolutionary Human Ant Colony

The Christian religion, from the perception of the conservative believer, must be kept perfect and flawless least any plague of imperfection affects both one’s God and one’s Bible.

The consequence here is that if either a flaw in God or the Bible is admitted, then the theological house of cards begins to fall just as when one domino stacked vertically in line with a thousands more is knock towards its neighbor likewise, secular logic begins to move the conservative theological mind away from the sanctuary of pat indoctrinated religious answers in turn forcing the believer to struggle with the reality of life just as he or she did before to their religious conversion.

In religion, objective truth is not the goal, but what matters is to insulate ones mind from the hard facts of the world and wrap one’s self in a theological blanket of love. When this happens, the believer becomes like an ant defending its colony and queen. Now when the ground shakes near the nest, or God forbid, the nest itself is touched; ants (like programmed and indoctrinated believers) swarm out to do battle often giving up their own life (martyrdom). Thus, at the vibration of any real or perceived threat, the colony advances forth in defense to attack and kill any threat to the safety and security of the nest (its sectarian religion / Bible) and (more importantly) the life brood of the nest itself: The queen or God.

Like a nest of Fire Ants (whose goal (like that of evangelical Christianity) is to evangelize the entire world with its nests) that have developed specialized warriors or soldiers ants whose huge jaws make them useless for little more that attacking and fighting for the colony, these Christian apologists / preachers soldier ants have development the same guard stance and move quickly to the defensive front lines to defend their doctrinal colony over and ahead of the smaller worker ants.

The sole function of the nest is again, to not so much to defend the colony (the Bible), but to defend until death what is in the center of the colony keeping it alive; that being its queen (God).

Since the queen is little good for anything but consuming food and producing eggs which hatch into more sterilized females and soldiers ants; the colony knows that (deep down in their genetic heats) without her, the entire nest is doomed and she must be protected and defended at all cost. Like the colony queen is to the worker and soldier ants, God is absolute truth who is perfect without any mixture of error and without the queen / God, the workers feel they have no more reason to live.

By comparison, the single church member (worker ant) is made to feel secure and protected in the colony along with their fellow indoctrinated, but mentally sterilized workers both bring unable to formulate any Christian doctrines themselves. However when disturbed, the specialized apologists and preachers will snap their huge doctrinal mandible jaws at any perceived threat knowing full well, that while their fellow smaller mentally sterilized workers out number them fifty to one, the workers job is not to fight (apologetics), but to support the colony (church) with food (tithes and offerings). Even thought the average doctrinally sterilized workers are equipped with small pincher months and small stingers, they quickly fall in battle due to the fact that their main function and make up is not colony defense, but colony support.

Thus, we have a similar symbiotic relationship where both the ant colony (the church) and the queen (God) must have the workers and soldier ants to care for and protect an enormous queen whose body has been rendered totally useless other than consuming food and laying eggs.

To facilitate this process, the queen in many colonies produces a sweet nectar that is consumed by the workers giving them strength to carry on until their wretched short lives past on and newly programmed mentally sterilized workers are added (evangelized) to take their place in a mindless colony with millions workers.

As I pass by the large Southern Baptist Church down the street from my house on Sunday mornings, I see is a huge nest of ants in which this large circular church is a functioning colony where the workers have brought their food (tithes and offerings) to the queen (God) while the preachers (seen as God’s vicar on earth) rewards the faithful but mindless workers with sweet sermonized nectar promises. They are assured that their huge queen (God, who is the prime mover in the creation of life) will always be there to love and protect them.

However in reality, their God-Queen is little more than an egg laying (evangelizing) figure head whose huge theological body is rendered useless being totally kept alive by the devotion to her (His) workers (the congregation as nest).

Should an independent, but objectively free thinking Secular Humanist happen to either shake the theological ground around this church nest - or God forbid - get inside the colony itself; the specialized soldier preachers and deacons will run to the defense of their God concept (knowing full well God’s huge bloated theological body is totally unable even to take care itself and must be constantly cleaned and feed simply to exist) snapping their huge mentally evolved apologetic jaws at the intruder.

But since these colony apologists can NOW no longer to attack and kill any free thinking secular invaders (Burning at the stake and torture), they try and force out the foreign / secular invader before many of the simple workers are mentally killed and even the center piece of the colony-church or God Himself is infected with secular ideas leading to theological weakness with the collapse and death of the religious nets being inevitable.

Here at DC, the contributors see this totally symbiotic relationship where a post shakes the theological ground near some doctrinal nest sending forth apologetic soldier ants and preachers snapping their huge mentally indoctrinated jaws at any perceived threat to the cheers of the simple, but mindless worker ants (Joe the Christian).

We are constantly told by these soldier apologists that if their huge indoctrinated jaws will not stop us, then one day the queen (God) itself will craw forth from somewhere deep down inside the nest (Heaven) to do an end time / apocrylpyptic battle with us and totally crushing all its free thinking secular enemies.

But since we secular atheist see the reality of this symbiotic relationship, we know that simply by killing (deprogramming) hundreds of worker ants plus an occasional apologist / soldier ant, the queen (God) being unable to stop the battle and can only hope to lay more eggs (proselytize more converters) before the entire colony itself falls into an irreversible decline.

We also know this huge queen (God) is totally unable to even move or care for itself and must be theologically carried along by its own doctrinally sterilized anti-free thinking workers and the apologetic soldiers ants just to appear to be active.

As independent free thinking Secular Humanist, I have now shaken the theological ground and, though I may see some drive-by defenses by the mentally sterilized worker Christians, I fully except the soldier Ant-Christians apologist to come forth to do battle snapping their huge mentally indoctrinated jaws, again not so much for the defense of their own sectarian colony, but their universal queen or the God concept itself!

32 comments:

J. K. Jones said...

Your inflamatory post is an interesting exercise in retoric.

The same analogies can be used to criticize the athiests.

You are questioning motives. You can't know those.

Harry McCall said...

JK Jones, you have just given a false analogy.

A. Atheist are free thinkers who may be either Relative Atheist (the Biblical God only) or Absolute Atheist (all Gods alike). We are not stamped out of a doctrinal cookie mold and required to believe the same dogmas!

B. I was forced out of Christian (Southern Baptist) Church for the same reason they fired all their tenured female professors: Their warped view of the world based on a Biblical God.

Please tell me JK Jones, where atheist have fired a whole section of humanity solely on gender??!!

I was not immoral, unethical, rude, or out of the Christian tradition. I simply required the worker ants to think: Big mistake in conservative Christianity!

C. I only state my personal views of the truth here on posts at DC. Whether or not you accept it is totally up to you. If you don’t, an atheistic Hell does not await you.

Player Piano said...

J.K. Jones,

Please be more specific and more precise: how is this post inflammatory?

How can the same analogies be used to criticize atheists? In what specific ways is this analogy applicable?

What motives is Harry questioning?

When you quit making unsupported assertions and you start giving specific, precise reasons, I will start listening seriously to you.

At that point, I will no longer dismiss your words as "an interesting exercise in rhetoric." ;)

Ironically you do the very thing which you accuse this poster of having done. Support your rhetoric with specific details and then come back to us.

Lvka said...

Christianity as an Evolutionary Human Ant Colony

Oh, yeah, and let me guess: the Protestant Reformation was the great Big Bang that actually caused or triggered this whole (r)evolutionary process that You make mention of.. :-)

BEHOLD, I SEND YOU AS ANTS AMONGST BEASTS!

Harry McCall said...

Lvka, it depends on where the ant net is. If it is local, it is Protestant or a cult or another sect. If it is in Rome; then it is Catholic.

If, as in your case it happens to be Orthodox, then it is in the Patriarchs where ever they may be.

Lvka said...

Here's my little contribution to Your post... >:)

ahswan said...

Sorry Harry, you're wrong again.

Jeff said...

Hmm, interesting analogy. All I can say is...anyone got a magnifying glass? :)

Harry McCall said...

ahswan, it’s nice to know I’m dealing with only a small worker ant in a drive by sting.

Harry McCall said...

Jeff, I could summarize here the sentiment of the writer of Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun. (Eccles. 1:9)

Including Christians who think like ants!

Player Piano said...

ahswan,

Your unbacked assertion is not particularly compelling.

Please specify how the writer of this post is wrong, in detail.

Thanks.

Harry McCall said...

Lvka, you never said of what you thought of my conversation with the Greek Orthodox Priest Father Tom and his church’s illusionary view of St. George slaying the dragon (St. George’s Greek Orthodox Church).

Lvka, as an Orthodox, did Saint George slay a real dragon or is this just another fabricated Christian lie?

Lvka said...

I think it's just another fabricated Christian lie. (Why?) As I knew it, the icon depicts St. George as he was in life, a military, and his slaying of the dragon is twofold: it represents the fact that he conquered the devil (by his glorious martyrdom for Christ: he was beheaded); and it also represents the victory (or hope for victory) of the Christian armies of the Orthodox (and Catholic?) lands againts their various invaders (e.g., Turks, Tatars, etc). I later found out that there's also a legend about him slaying a dragon, and which happened after his death, but I don't think it's more than a pious fabrication, errr, legend.

As for the Priest's reaction, if I were that Priest, and someone would phone me acting all cocky, like a wise-guy-slash-smart-@$$, pretending like he's Dostoyevski's Great Inquisitor or somethin', I would've found out who called me (i.e., call the central to get Your number), then either ask the centralist to give me Your approximate address and/or look it up in the phone-book or yellow-pages, and then pay You a little visit home ... >:) -- Seriously, I had to take so much $h!t coming from Protestants ever since I was 4 or 5 yrs old, so my patience with them and their crappy little securistic mock-methods is running short, so ... if I were You, I would just get down on Your knees and thank God that -in His infinite mercy and providence- He didn't let You call a *Romanian* Orthodox priest (BTW, did that Priest emphasize that You had to be **Greek** Orthodox to be saved ... or did he just meant it generically, for all Orthodox? -- cause maybe I'll have to become Greek also, who knows?) >:) :D

Harry McCall said...

“As for the Priest's reaction, if I were that Priest, and someone would phone me acting all cocky, like a wise-guy-slash-smart-@$$, pretending like he's Dostoyevski's Great Inquisitor or somethin', I would've found out who called me (i.e., call the central to get Your number), then either ask the centralist to give me Your approximate address and/or look it up in the phone-book or yellow-pages, and then pay You a little visit home ... >J”

Lvka, I've called Baptist, Orthodox, Mormons at Bingham Young University, Jehovah Witnesses and Adventist. So Father Tom was simply pare for the course.

As for him coming to my house, I would be glad to feed him a meal at a local restaurant if he would just seat down for an hour and discuss what he gets paid to do; talk about the Orthodox religion.

As far as this priest being a threat to me, hell I beat the Everlast Karate bag at my gym hard enough to bend a s-hook straight causing the bag to fall to the floor and Father Tom’s face would be no different. The only question would be, not that Father Tom would go down, but how many times could I hit him before he hit the floor!

And finally, this Holy man called Father Tom, specify said “Greek Orthodox".

Sorry about the Protestants.

Lvka said...

Well, ... he doesn't exactly "get" paid to talk about Orthodoxy (it's not exactly like money just falls from the sky, if You know what I mean) ... he lives by the weekly donations of the faithful ... of whom You're NOT one ... so may I suggest You either pay for his lunch (AND give him some extra ca$h too) ... or You lure him into thinking he might actually get You to convert You into one of his little sheep, whom he can later shear and milk of money ... otherwise, just forget it ... :-)

Just a little friendly advice from an insider ... :D

ahswan said...

Player Piano, There are some groups who do seem to operate as ant colonies, but this is not the norm, nor does this reflect the Biblical concept of the Church.

Having been in leadership positions of several churches, I have yet to see more than a handful of people respond in the ways that Harry lays out. That behavior is referred to as "spiritual abuse" on the part of church leadership, and again, is not how the church nor christians should operate.

Harry would like you to believe that Christianity is nothing more than a cult who has to hang on to empty beliefs. Again, there are a few people like this, but again, it's not the norm.

Christians are much more open to questions and debate than you think. There is no "theological house of cards" (unless, perhaps, you're an extreme Calvinist). In Christianity, truth is definitely the goal. We do struggle with the realities of life, and can do it without a loss of faith. If you really want to struggle with the realities of life, come hang out with me and my friends - your beliefs about Christians would be blown to bits.

Player Piano said...

Ahswan,

You're assuming that Harry and I share similar beliefs about Christians. We don't: I agree with you that there are many thoughtful, intelligent, honest Christians. I just disagree with you on whether the Christian god or any god or gods actually exist(s).

My beliefs aren't based on emotional arguments. If they were, I'd probably still be a Christian, because many Christians I've met are really good people. I just wanted you to be more specific in your response to Harry. I was just tired of people making broad assertions without specifying what they meant, which happens frequently.

J. K. Jones said...

Harry McCall,


“Atheist are free thinkers … We are not stamped out of a doctrinal cookie mold and required to believe the same dogmas!... I simply required the worker ants to think: Big mistake in conservative Christianity”

There are a wide variety of differing beliefs on many topics within the Christian faith. We are not in agreement on every topic, but we do have unity on certain ones.

Also, we do our own share of thinking. You may not agree with our conclusions, but please stop accusing us of willful ignorance or stupidity.

“… where atheist have fired a whole section of humanity solely on gender??!! “

I don’t know of anywhere, but I do know of Stain, Lenin and Mao having ‘fired’ a whole segment of humanity based on their belief in God.


Player Piano,

“…how is this post inflammatory?”

How do you like the notion that atheist as a group are just a bunch of worker ants that defend certain positions at all costs without thinking through the issues? How about the notion that all atheists do not have the intellectual honesty to accept the truth of God’s existence?

“…How can the same analogies be used to criticize atheists? In what specific ways is this analogy applicable?”

Atheists, in general (!), defend the following beliefs at all costs:

Christians don’t have reasons to accept their faith as true.

Christians accept their faith based on psychological need, not actual proof or sound reasoning.

There are no reasons to believe in the existence of any type of god(s).

Atheists never commit the kinds of atrocities that religious believers do.

Of course, this is not a comprehensive list.

When these central beliefs are threatened, the intellectual soldier ants come out to do battle with the perceived threat knowing full well that many of their arguments will not be understood by the less philosophical worker ants in their own colony.

You see, these colony apologists can’t attack and kill any free thinking secular invaders as they have in other cultures (reference Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, among others). They try and force out the religious invader before many of the simple workers are mentally killed. They defend the center piece of the colony, the perceived lack of intellectual arguments of God’s existence, at any and all cost, sometimes devoting large amounts of time to the defense of a colony lest it be infected with religious ideas leading to weakness with the collapse and death of the atheist tennants being inevitable.

“What motives is Harry questioning?”

Does the content of this comment reflect your own thinking, or have I put fort a position that is not your own? Have I accused you of something that is not true in your own self-description?

How does that make you feel?

NAL said...

J. K. Jones:
Have I accused you of something that is not true in your own self-description?

How does that make you feel?


Like you don't know what you're talking about.

Player Piano said...

J.K. Jones,

Thanks for replying to my post! I will try to address your points as clearly as I can.

"How do you like the notion that atheist as a group are just a bunch of worker ants that defend certain positions at all costs without thinking through the issues?"

I don't like that notion. However, for many Christians, many religious believers, and some atheists, it is accurate. And its accuracy is not contingent upon how much I like it.

"How about the notion that all atheists do not have the intellectual honesty to accept the truth of God’s existence?"

Well, we disagree here. It doesn't require much intellectual dishonesty to disbelieve a claim for which there is no evidence, as most atheists do. However, many theists believe a claim for which there is little or no evidence. Most Christians are intellectually honest about other things, but it appears accurate that many Christians and other theists just aren't intellectually honest about what they believe. I'm sure the same is true for some atheists.

"Atheists, in general (!), defend the following beliefs at all costs:

Christians don’t have reasons to accept their faith as true.

Christians accept their faith based on psychological need, not actual proof or sound reasoning.

There are no reasons to believe in the existence of any type of god(s).

Atheists never commit the kinds of atrocities that religious believers do."

Atheists defend positions? Yes, this is accurate. However, I disagree with the way you have presented many of the things on this list.

I think that there are intellectual reasons for Christians' accepting their faith as true, I just disagree with those reasons. However, I am willing to admit that there are also perfectly valid emotional reasons for why Christians accept their faith, and I understand that. Unfortunately, many Christians cannot separate their intellectual justifications from their emotional ones. Mostly I feel it is because their is a stigma that emotional belief is irrational. However, I do not fully agree with this. There are perfectly good reasons for being emotional or even "irrational" at times. However, I believe that the truth will set you free.

Also, I agree that atheists have committed atrocities, just as religious believers have.

However, I think you are extremely confused as to what many atheists are defending. What many atheists defend vigorously, is the idea that these people did not commmit atrocities BECAUSE of their atheism even though they were atheists. And yes, I agree that this rationale also extends to Christians and other theists.

"When these central beliefs are threatened, the intellectual soldier ants come out to do battle with the perceived threat knowing full well that many of their arguments will not be understood by the less philosophical worker ants in their own colony."

Ha! My arguments are usually always easier to understand than most of the apologists who post on this blog! Check out the Ontological argument thread if you don't know what I'm talking about. Apologists are worse than anyone at distorting and convoluting philosophy to support their positions! Your claims so far have been reasonably defensible, but this claim is just outrageous. Sure, there are atheists that are difficult to understand at times, but overall our arguments are way more accessible than the Christian apologists' ones. However, I must admit that accessibility has nothing to do with validity. Please don't infer that I was implying this, because I'm not.

"You see, these colony apologists can’t attack and kill any free thinking secular invaders as they have in other cultures (reference Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, among others)."

Wow! What did I just say?

I just said "atheists vigorously defend the idea that people who commited atrocities did not do so BECAUSE of their atheism" but because of their political ideology. J.K. Jones, please double check your arguments.

"They try and force out the religious invader before many of the simple workers are mentally killed. They defend the center piece of the colony, the perceived lack of intellectual arguments of God’s existence, at any and all cost, sometimes devoting large amounts of time to the defense of a colony lest it be infected with religious ideas leading to weakness with the collapse and death of the atheist tennants being inevitable."

Wow, do you have any idea what you're saying here? Atheists try to force out religious believers? Since when? And communism doesn't count, because it is a political ideology, not a religious one.

When I engage in civil conversation on this blog, are you saying that is equivalent to me leading a tank brigade and forcing you out of your home? Because that seems to be the thrust of your argument.

"Does the content of this comment reflect your own thinking, or have I put fort a position that is not your own?"

Not only have you put forth positions that are not my own, but you have distorted many of the positions which I have put forth.

I do understand that Harry is responsible for putting down positions that are not held by all Christians, but I believe that his criticisms are accurate for a large number of Christians and other theists, while I also believe that many of your claims about atheists are in some sense accurate, many of them are also wildly inaccurate and distorted.

"Have I accused you of something that is not true in your own self-description?"

Yes, in a few instances, you have, and I addressed those instances.

"How does that make you feel?"

Tired. Soon I'm going to have carpal tunnel syndrome. ;)

josh said...

Henry:

Great article! (I believe you mean "tithes" instead of "tides".)

Harry McCall said...

Josh, thanks for the nice comment and correction. I have changed the error in my post. Thank!

Harry McCall said...

Jones: “Atheist are free thinkers … We are not stamped out of a doctrinal cookie mold and required to believe the same dogmas!... I simply required the worker ants to think: Big mistake in conservative Christianity”

There are a wide variety of differing beliefs on many topics within the Christian faith. We are not in agreement on every topic, but we do have unity on certain ones.

Also, we do our own share of thinking. You may not agree with our conclusions, but please stop accusing us of willful ignorance or stupidity.


JK Jones, please cite an atheistic creedal statement that we must believe and defend. That's part of being Free Thinkers. I came at my conclusion that God did not exist, not by the preaching of some atheistic evangelist, but entirely on my own. Fact is, I hated Madelyn Murray O’Hare while she alive as a rude loud mouth bitch and I think she still was!

I am a Relative Atheist (no Biblical god) an not an Absolute Atheist (Totally no gods at all), as I believe in a impersonal force much like in the Star Trek movies. As to no gods / forces at all, I am an agnostic

So now Mr. Jones, put that in your Christian creedal pipe and smoke it!.


Jones: “… where atheist have fired a whole section of humanity solely on gender??!!”

I don’t know of anywhere, but I do know of Stain, Lenin and Mao having ‘fired’ a whole segment of humanity based on their belief in God.


Try the Southern Baptist Convention! Have women committed some eternal sin?

As far as murdering humanity, atheism is but a small part of the ideology of Communism. Class struggle against the rich Czars and the abuse by Shan Kia-sheck (Himself a Christian) is what was attacked along with the institutions that supported them.

Since the church has support these institutions in which Czars and Kings were crowned by divine right, it were attack too. The Church had supported the divine rights of kings just as in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament where both Jesus and God are depicted as Kings who will rule as such in the so-called end times New Jerusalem.

Hitler used the Church in Germany to advance a new divine leadership of the 3rd Reich (The sizable Evangelische Jugend, a Lutheran youth organization of 600,000 members, was integrated on February 18, 1934).

The Bible explicitly demands killing of all none Israelites and the Book of Joshua clearly depicts this in the taking of Canaan.

The end time slaughters of all non believers is first set out in Matthew 24 and with the slaughter is finalized in the Book of Revelation just as the slaughter of the entire earth is depicted in Noah’s flood based simply the so-called true faith in the right god.

This is projected to reality in the Crusades and the Inquisition as well as the Protestant's murderous attack on Catholics.

The murdering brutality of the settlers of the New World who saw the Atlantic Ocean as the Jordan River and the native Indians in America as the Canaanites is history of a shameful past in which white saw their Manifest Distantly ordained by God.

The use of this theology in the Bible is the bases of the KKK and the reason why large white churches in the South, particular the Bible based or Bible as Creed Only Southern Baptist Convention, either openly attacked the Civil Rights movement or, as Dr. Martian Luther King so vividly pointed out in his I Have a Dream speech in 1963, white church members and their pastors sat complacent behind their stain glass window hoping for the secure days of the past often knowing whites were God's chosen people.

So, it is little wonder, that while atheism is itself non- violent (especially when combined with Secular Humanism), the established Christian church is closely associated with the governments that are in power and promotes this same ruling authority as the key to a secure future based on the past; or put another way, the Czar government protected the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church protected the ruling Czars based directly from the Hebrew Bible and Paul’s theology in Romans 13.

Hate mongers such as Father Charles Coughlin derived much of his anti-Jewish attacks directly form the Gospels themselves.

As for as your conclusion that atheism caused the mass killing of Stalin and Mao, that is like claiming the red hair of a mass murder was the reason he killed.

Your view of the history of Communism is really narrow and short sighted.

As an example, in all the post here at DC (nearly a thousand), can you name one post that an atheist agreed with and protected Stalin or Mao ??

However, I can and have done so, post a short article condemning the murdering Hebrews / Israelites in the Old Testament and or the murdering of God in the Great Flood of Noah along with the slaughter in the Book of Revelation and Christian apologists will, like my Christian any colony analogy, will swarm to the Bibles defense!


This is my point on indoctrinated Christian human ants who march to the drum beat of an infallible Bible and God!

J. K. Jones said...

Harry McCall,

“… please cite an atheistic creedal statement that we must believe and defend…”
You do not have to have a formal statement of your beliefs in order to be expected to hold them by atheists in general.

“… atheism is but a small part of the ideology of …”
By the same token, Christianity cannot be blamed for all of the ways it has been misused. You can’t have one set of standards for atheism and one set for religion that differ.
Please keep in mind that I am saying that there are evil men from every religion or lack thereof who have committed atrocities. Christianity has had its share of those who have misused and / or misunderstood its precepts. We admit we have been wrong. Why don’t you?

“…Dr. Martin Luther King so vividly pointed out…”
Dr. King appealed to Christian morality as a standard to which his culture did not attain. He was a proponent of Christian ethics. Without Christian ethics, what would he have based his call to moral improvement on? Where would he have found the standard to appeal to?

“… can you name one post that an atheist agreed with and protected Stalin or Mao…”
Then neither do I agree with Hitler, etc. Don’t change your standard. Be consistent.

Harry McCall said...

Mr. Jones, the Bible itself; the bases for all that is beleive about God is muderous and evil:

The Book of Joshua makes this example of an immoral, uneithical God name Yahweh plain as I see it in only the fall of Jericho:

With the city wall destroyed, the human slaughter of all the men women and children along with their animals could begin under the ancient concept of Holy War where Yahweh, as the leading Warrior-King deity of the Israelite army, demands all the booty of the city from the death of all living things to its gold, silver, bronze and iron as his portion of the הרס or “harem” or the BAN.

“They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword…They burned the city with fire, and all that was in it. Only the silver and gold, and articles of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. (Joshua 6: 21 & 24)

{Word study: שָׂרַף as used in this context is associated with בָּאֵשׁ as the text reads
“שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ” or “to burn with fire”. This is a cognate of the Akkadian ina isati sarapu “to destroy by fire” as in relation to burning figurines in magic rituals.

The word שָׂרַף as used in this study is associated in the Priestly work of Leviticus in the burning of animal sacrifices (see also Numbers 17:4, Judges 7: 31, 19: 5 and 2 Kings 17:31). However, most importantly, פרש is used in the Hebrew Bible in the context of children burnt to the gods: Duet. 12: 31, Jeremiah 7: 31, 19: 5, and 2 Kings 17: 31.

Thus, all life, both human and animal life of the city of Jericho, is ritualistically slaughtered and then Yahweh can feast on the smoke from the blood and bodies of the victims, the city is “שָׂרַף בָּאֵש” or burnt with fire.}


The cultic magical elements flow full and free in Joshua 6 - 7. But the victory is short lived due to hidden sin! Unknown to Joshua, Yahweh is denied his full booty; not the precious lives of the non-combatant: All the innocent women, children, babies, the unborn and animals (which Yahweh again equates the innocent human life), but Yahweh greed is for the material metal wealth; that is the gold, silver, bronze and iron that could be used in his tabernacle. (In the book of Jonah, after Jonah preaches in Nineveh, Jonah 4:11 tells us that both humans and animal repented.)

With the murder of all life in Jericho completed and the everything burnt to Yahweh (Notice that the cultic proper killing of life of both humans and animal in Jericho means that their blood must be drained. Thus Joshua 6: 21 makes it a point to tell the Jewish reader of this epic that death was to be by “the edge of the sword” before the ritual / sacrificial burning 6: 24 could take place.)

To seal the future fate of the city, an divine curse is placed on anyone who tries to rebuild it:

“Then Joshua made them take an oath at that time, saying, "Cursed before the LORD is the man who rises up and builds this city Jericho; with the loss of his firstborn he shall lay its foundation, and with the loss of his youngest son he shall set up its gates." (Joshua 6:26). (again, the curse here is much like we find in such major This is like many general ancient Near Eastern Akkadian texts such as the epilogue to the Code of Hammurabi. Thus, Yahweh’s curse in verse 26 has set the stage for the slaughter of Achan and all that belonged to him.

Since Yahweh was denied his booty of gold and silver, Yahweh must take his vengeance out on the 3,000 Israelites by not marching into Holy War against Ai:

“So about three thousand men from the people went up there, but they fled from the men of Ai. The men of Ai struck down about thirty-six of their men, and pursued them from the gate as far as Shebarim and struck them down on the descent, so the hearts of the people melted and became as water.” (Joshua 7: 4-5)

The reason given to Joshua is that “Israel has sinned” by taking Yahweh’s gold and sliver:

"Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. And they have even taken some of the things under the ban and have both stolen and deceived. Moreover, they have also put them among their own things.” (Joshua 7: 11) Thus, all of Israel must consecrate themselves to be made holy (as in a divine ritual for Holy Warriors and priests):

“ 'It shall be that the one who is taken with the things under the ban (harem) shall be burned with fire, he and all that belongs to him, because he has transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he has committed a disgraceful thing in Israel.'" (Joshua 7: 15).

Since Yahweh was cheated out of his gold and silver, human slaughter must sacrificially be feed to Yahweh to quench his hunger for blood and life:

“Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this day." And all Israel stoned them with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.” (Joshua 7: 25)

Again, the slaughter of men, women, children, babies along with the unborn are an atonement for the original booty of gold and silver God was denied. As such, Achan’s whole extended family is sacrificed by stoning (death caused by blunt force trauma
associated with both external and internal bleeding) then, just like Jericho, the slaughtered families are sacrificed to Yahweh to feed on by fire and its smoke.

To mark the spot as holy, an altar built of stones was set up there to honor Yahweh:

“They raised over him a great heap of stones that stands to this day, and the LORD turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place has been called the valley of Achor to this day.” (Joshua 7: 26)

With Yahweh’s hunger for human blood and flesh satisfied, he again marches with the Israelites into Holy War; this time against Ai. But, unlike before, Joshua cuts a deal with Yahweh to make up for their defeat the first time by Achan’s hidden sin. Thus, Israel will get to keep all the “spoils and its cattle” (8: 2), but again, all the human life of 12,000 souls must be sacrificially killed and burnt to Yahweh:

“…then all Israel returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword. All who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000-- all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not withdraw his hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. … So Joshua burned Ai and made it a heap forever, a desolation until this day.” (Joshua 8:24c - 26 and 28)

Mr. Jones, this is the Bible speaking for itself telling people what God requires and what he himself wants.

If you think we atheists have anything we honor as high as you Christians honor your Bibles and all its immoral and uneithical flaws, please tell me!

Until then, you Christians have an
albatross called the "Word of God / Bible" hung around your necks.

Gandolf said...

J k Jones said "By the same token, Christianity cannot be blamed for all of the ways it has been misused. You can’t have one set of standards for atheism and one set for religion that differ.
Please keep in mind that I am saying that there are evil men from every religion or lack thereof who have committed atrocities. Christianity has had its share of those who have misused and / or misunderstood its precepts. We admit we have been wrong. Why don’t you?"

Hey J k ...Can you please show us the written precepts of (atheism) that can be misused or misunderstood?.

Atheism comes with no authorized direction or order .There is no written rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct for atheists to all follow.

These things most certainly christianity has which can be used and have been used all to often to such nasty effects .Whether its that you suggest its through misuse or misunderstanding is entirely up to you and your suggestions of your personal translation .Many faithful folk will disagree with you too im quite sure.Thats part of the problem of course with the bible its just so confusing! the reason so many do in fact interpret it quite differently,something we could most likely really expect to happen of works of mere men.But what ever the decisions of differences of translations etc it doesnt change the FACT that from these very bible writings people do actually get directions such as separation, excommunication, the man is the head of the house, division of family etc etc you name it its actually written there for those who read it.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:

And some who READ IT ! will decide/translate it to mean division is supposed to happen etc.

There is no bible for atheists however and so no written principle belief to misunderstand or misuse or even try to follow.Stalin or Mao or whoever Christians might try to supply (did not) do what ever they did though any misuse or misunderstanding of any atheist principles or beliefs .Because there is absolutely no written principle atheist belief to believe in or follow.

Other than the disbelief of god/s ,now that would be a rather hard principle belief to either misunderstand or misuse wouldnt it :).The atheists bible all 4 words of it ,there is no god/s .The end.

That is a very different kettle of fish then isnt it really?.

Tell me how with any (REAL HONESTY) do christians ever try to compare the two?.

You would with real honesty? compared a non written belief with no directions or instructions, with a written one the christian bible that also contains within its many pages many suggested divine directions and instructions etc?.

To me any suggested real comparisons would personally to me seem to be about as dishonest, as i suggest much of the bible actually is .

And that time and time again christians try to come up with this feeble unfair comparison .Im suggesting i feel im maybe seeing a pattern developing here ,its a pattern of dishonesty.

Deceitful books produce deceitful people? or maybe just the deluded .

In the dictionary deceit :the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating

Personally to me your trial at this comparison seems so distorted and misleading in the very least,as to whether its through deceit or just delusion im really not quite so sure yet.

But i do know there are many faithful who are not so silly really, and im sure many of them can really see that there actually is some very big differences here in this comparison thats so often tried to be made.

But the problem is many just dont want to accept it.

You say:"You can’t have one set of standards for atheism and one set for religion that differ"

Really ?? not even if one has a written belief system that leads to the situations in question, whilst the other one does not ?.

This judgement seems at least a little unjust to me.

Christians believe in a god and bible that often seems rather unjust to many of us ,is there a connection here also?.

Rick said...

Gandolf said:

There is no bible for atheists however and so no written principle belief to misunderstand or misuse or even try to follow.Stalin or Mao or whoever Christians might try to supply (did not) do what ever they did though any misuse or misunderstanding of any atheist principles or beliefs .Because there is absolutely no written principle atheist belief to believe in or follow.


Gandolf,

Whether there is an official written document that all atheists hold as authoritative and foundational to their ethics is not a relevant question. In fact, it begs the question in the discussion of what justification people find for their evil acts and attitudes.

You find a basis for “Christian evil” in the fact that they claim to hold to the Bible (which you find “evil” or “immoral”) as authoritative. I would agree to a point, with an important qualification. It is true that some “Christian evil” is a result of either honestly mistaken or deliberately perverted interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand, much evil has been done by “Christians” who don’t necessarily hold to the Bible as their absolute standard, and also by Christians who seek, but to their dismay fail, to attain that standard they properly understand.

You say Christians are being consistent with their authoritative written standard when they do evil. I say they are being inconsistent with the Scriptures when they do evil. To evaluate this we would have to compare their actions with the standard of the Bible. We would also have to have a standard to define “evil.”

In your evaluation though, you seek to eliminate, by definition, the possibility that “atheist evil” can derive from their atheism, that is, from their understanding of life and the world (without God), simply because the atheist has no such universally authoritative written standard of morality to follow or deviate from. But this begs the question because the atheist position effectively rules out the “universal rules” idea from the start – whether written or not. This however, does not address the question of “WHY” atheists do what evil they do, or “HOW” they seek to justify it. Further, whether a standard is written is irrelevant to whether it is consistently believed.

Gandolf, if you would be honest you would have to acknowledge that atheists do have a foundational authoritative belief which is the standard upon which all of their actions are either justified or condemned.

The non-negotiable, unchangeable, universal creed of the atheist is this: “Man is autonomous.” In all matters of morality and ethics, he is a law unto himself.

This is a necessary corollary to the idea that “there is no god/s.”

From this universal atheistic principle Stalin, Mao, and numerous other atheist tyrants and criminals have proceeded in their murderous campaigns. Further, they have been, by the very principle you hold in common with them, perfectly justified in doing so. It is beyond dispute that their actions have been consistent with this universal atheistic principle.

You may disagree with their morality, but you agree with the principle underlying their freedom to do that which you condemn. If you would posit some intermediary principle, such as “man’s freedom does not extend to that which is harmful to others,” this is merely a statement of your personal, autonomous preference and has no binding authority over the foundational principle you must, by definition, espouse – “MAN IS AUTONOMOUS.”

What they have done cannot be defined by you as “wrong” or “evil” in any way beyond your personal preference according to your own autonomous moral standard or, if many persons agree with you, the general consensus. But this would not change the fact that by atheistic principles they stand justified in their actions, because there is no universal atheistic moral standard from which they have deviated, or by which they may be condemned.

In their own eyes, they are justified in their actions just as authoritatively as you, in your eyes, are justified in condemning them. It’s a standoff, without possibility of resolution. Live and let live. Sure, you can get all your friends together to oppose those things which you condemn, and establish your own preferences as the rule. But isn’t that what Stalin and Mao did, isn’t that just the imposition of your standards on others, and isn’t that justifiably viewed as being every bit as arbitrary as Stalin and Mao imposing theirs on others? "Live and let live" (unless your standard says "conquer and rule" or "depose the rulers" or “kill the deposers” or... ad infinitum). Remember – “Man is autonomous.”

THAT is the (sometimes) unwritten premise underlying everything you (as atheists) do and say.

Therefore, when you say,

“Stalin or Mao or whoever Christians might try to supply (did not) do what ever they did though any misuse or misunderstanding of any atheist principles or beliefs .”

You are correct. But that does not help you. Rather, it highlights the complete lack of any ethical foundation in the atheistic, autonomous view of the world. It was not from “misuse” or “misunderstanding” of atheist principles that they carried out their evil. Their murderous, tyrannical regimes were a perfectly consistent application of a proper understanding of the foundational atheistic principle of autonomy. What’s more, believing they had no ultimate judge to face (God) they carried out their evil without that consideration to deter or mitigate their actions – again, consistent atheism.

So, your problem is that “atheist evil” is undeniably, indisputably, and necessarily consistent with the foundational atheist principle of man’s autonomy.

Your other problem is that you have no standard beyond personal preference to even speak of “evil” or condemn anybody – be they atheist political tyrants or so-called "Christian" tyrants.

Your condemnation of the God of the Bible is certainly no more than a statement of personal preference either - Noted.

The Christian holding consistently to the Scriptures has no such problem, and is justified, by that standard, in condemning all of the above – not least, your (would be) autonomous rejection of God.

Peace,

Rick

Harry McCall said...

Rick, did you not read my comment back to Mr. Jones where I directly quoted the Book or Joshua where the Biblical God feed on the Blood and the smoke of human sacrifice?

Jesus NEVER once condemned the murderous actions of Yahweh. The theology of the הרס or “harem” the BAN with your God demanding human sacrifice in ancient Israel especially where God’s greed for gold, silver and bronze is more valuable in his mind than the lives of the aged, women, children, babies and the unborn in Jericho!

This holy slaughter will continue as Jesus states in Matthew 24 and on into Revelation.

God needs a reason to kill just like your view of Mao and Stalin.

Faith in God slaughters the aged, women, children, babies and the unborn in Jericho and, faith in God flies planes in the World Trade Centers on 9/11.


The world of Mao and Stalin is but a shot time with its rise and fall (of the USSR) as compared to the 4,000 years the Bible has set the example of religious hate and killings.

Forget, for now the murderous demands of God in the Bible over some 3,000 years and just consider the religious witch trials in Europe where God himself states that a witch should not be allowed to live: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (Exodus 22: 18) and how the Church killed over 4,000 old women, the mentally ill and anyone who spoke against Christianity.

Even your Bible's Book of Acts promotes Communism by the killing of anyone who does not give up all the wealth to a Communistic leader called the Apostle Peter with God himself setting the example for Mao & Stalin by murdering Ananias, with his wife Sapphira in Acts 5: 1 -11!

Rick, Mao and Stalin were but a short minute on the human time scale, but Bible's religion is part of a 6,000 year history of God demanded murder and death!

I’ll take the short rise and fall of Mao and Stalin over the 6,000 year history of your God killing the aged, women, children, babies and the unborn begining in the flood of Noah to his directed thousands of years of Israelite and Christian killings all the way until God slaughters any so-called foes at the apocalyptic end times.

So, if you want me to accept your claim that atheism caused Mao and Stalin to murder tens of thousand of people, then you must accept the reality that 100’s of billions murdered in the name of God and the Bible (both in the past and in the future)!


Plus, Charles Manson’s murderous action base on the Book of Revelation from the Bible.

Plus, the murderous cult of the Children of God.

Plus, David Koresh murderous action based on the Bible.

So for every murdering Communist you claim killed in the name of godless atheism, I can name up to 100 who killed in the name of God and religion as God is seen in Islam, Hinduism, and the past God fearing Aztecs of Central America to the murderous God fearing religion of Africa and New Guinea.

Gandolf said...

"Rick said Gandolf,

Whether there is an official written document that all atheists hold as authoritative and foundational to their ethics is not a relevant question. In fact, it begs the question in the discussion of what justification people find for their evil acts and attitudes."

Oh ok ."Is not a relevant question" RULES the Christian .

Well thankfully the religious bigoted rulings are slowly being shown that they just dont overrule everything anymore.

I still stand by what ive said .And really im not surprised with the christian knee jerk reaction of its just "not relevant".They could provide no written document that atheists supposedly follow that could be read by atheists to lead atheist to do bad things .

So apply the "not relevant" ,answer.Wella ! case closed.

I guess its the best that can be done when you find yourself holding a written bible belief system that within its pages DOES suggest many nasty things.And DOES lead many faithful folk to do the nasty things some of them do.

Rick"The non-negotiable, unchangeable, universal creed of the atheist is this: “Man is autonomous.” In all matters of morality and ethics, he is a law unto himself."

Where have you been Rick la la land?.Have you never been introduced to countries that actually have laws ?.

Atheist still live in communities Rick we do still have to fit into society.Like we all have done long before the bible was around.

You can try to suggest all people without some bullshit god belief somehow are "a law unto himself" all you like.

But i think most people know its total crap .

There is bad people without any religious beliefs in this world because they are bad ,there is also many with no beliefs who fit into society keeping the countries laws .

But the FACT remains !! we also have many of faith who are nasty as well because of the bible they read .Its scriptures can be translated by some a certain way and can then incite nastiness.

My words still stand.Christians!, show me some atheist written belief system that when read could be suggested to have incited atheist people to do nasty things.

Rick said...

I don’t think you get it Gandolf. You seem to have missed everything I said. No atheist needs a written belief system to justify his evil actions. He is his own ultimate authority.

When “Christians” do evil, they violate the standard they profess – they are NOT justified in their evil actions. When atheists do evil, they are consistent with their basic principle of autonomy, and by this principle they are justified in their “evil” actions. No created or preferred laws undermine this principle, but only rest on it. It is foundational.

When men agree on standards and/or make laws they do so from their basic presumed autonomy if they deny God’s existence. They may make good laws, or they may make bad laws, but whatever they agree on their agreement still depends upon their individual, personal, autonomous preference. That is their undisputable, necessary starting point and ultimate standard. They are each their own authority, even if by that authority they agree to set up an authority that they will submit to.

Stalin and Mao were consistent with atheistic principles when they set up, by their authority, an authority that all others had to submit to or die. No honest atheist can deny that they followed the atheistic principle of autonomy. In fact, that is all any atheist can do.

You may disagree with the way people use their presumed autonomy and you can try to impose your preferred model of morality through “good” laws or through the use of violent force. In either case you don’t nullify my point in so doing, rather, you establish it.

Absent any higher authority than man, man decides for himself right and wrong. No one man or group of men has any inherent authority greater than any other man (since they too are only men). What authority is created by men by consent is derived authority, drawing its existence from the autonomous consent of the men who create it. If they together agree to do what would please you and me, okay. If they do what you and I would consider “evil,” oh well, that’s fully within the purview of autonomous man. If one, by use of violent force carries out atrocities you despise, that’s fully within the purview of autonomous man. Again, you may dislike the deed, but the principle is inescapable for the atheist, and the atrocities so carried out are perfectly consistent with it.

If the substance of your response is going to be “that’s bullshit” you will have proven that you’re completely missing the substance of my point, or you’re just exercising your autonomous right to obfuscate and evade. In either case, my case is made.

Gandolf said...

Rick said "When “Christians” do evil, they violate the standard they profess – they are NOT justified in their evil actions."

Well thats where i think you maybe are misunderstanding matters Rick and its the point ive been trying to make.Many christians can do many nasty evil things which can be quite in keeping with what they read that they are supposed to be doing according to the bible.Without violating the standard written within its pages. Some say its through wrong translations or what ever ,but the facts remain these things are written in plain words to be read and acted upon.

Separation and excommunication of family is one thing i will mention,why? well because ive experience the full force of this evil biblical nastiness myself.

And as ive already said such scripture as "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household "

Whether its right or wrong translation taken out of context or whatever excuse might be offered up.Doesnt change the fact that these written biblical words in this book lead some people who read it to believe what they are doing is quite right.

You say "No atheist needs a written belief system to justify his evil actions. He is his (own) ultimate authority."

And i agree.Men such as Hitler Stalin and Mao did what they did because of themselves it was not about anything they read that all we atheists read as well.Surely you wont be saying all non believers go around doing these things.We have no written belief system suggesting these nasty things,if we had some atheist bible that suggested such things i suppose it quite likely that many more of us likely might be following suit.

I then would agree that there was something similar to then be compared.

And thats the difference i suggest that there is, to any who might like to try to compare.

I suggest you cannot compare written commandments that people follow as a group ,with the personal actions and beliefs of a few who follow only themselves.

Evil and nastiness born from a written (group belief)the holy bible ,is a whole lot different to (me) than the unwritten personal actions of (singular people) following (only) their own personal thoughts.

No doubt you may disagree ,which is quite ok.

There is no need that we agree.

You said "Absent any higher authority than man, man decides for himself right and wrong"

Out of interest tell me whos authority then you think is in this bible book?.I think its mere men deciding for themselves whats "right and wrong"and writing it down.So its still only the authority of man anyway my friend.Nothing higher.

Maybe you actually think some god actually spoke and gave these supposed higher authorities to some people that were then written down.

Seems to me with all that been shown to be little more than myths, being that so much just doesnt add up in these books.

:)This god must then be some kind of soothsayer gone wrong .

And its rather strange isnt it for some reason this god (supposedly)only talks to some ,yet cant be bothered talking to us all.Funny that!.

If i believed in god/s id then say what a bloody idiot ,things are much better taught coming straight from the horses mouth.What the hell are you doing man ? trying to trip people up.Speak up dad !. :)

But because i dont see any real evidence or facts to suggest god/s really exist.

I then think its just those that believe these writings that could be said by some to not be quite so smart.

Harry McCall said...

In the final analysis, God (religion) has killed and will continue to kill millions to billions more then any short lived hard core atheistic communist governments ever could conceived to killed.

Death is what keeps God / the gods in business with religions feeding on both ignorance and fear.