Showing posts with label Uncomfortable Facts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Uncomfortable Facts. Show all posts

Episode 49: "Dragging The S.L.E.D" - A Chat About Abortion w/@writer724 - DISCUSSION POST


In this episode, Jax and I have a chat about abortion. It was impromptu and unplanned, hence why the conversation may sound disjointed at times (and my son was being hyperactive in the background). 

Verses discussed:

Numbers 5:11-29

Psalm 137:9 

Hosea 13:16 

Music in the background: 

Victim Of Illusion and their album, "Invisible Light

Find Jax here: https://www.tiktok.com/@that_one26 Find the S.L.E.D PDF Here: https://www.scribd.com/document/528224430/S-L-E-D-a-Pro-life-Defense

Ravi Zacharias - Confirmed Abuser

So, the final report in to the claims of sexual misconduct by Ravi Zacharias has come out. And while we don't have his side of the story, unfortunately, there is enough material to conclusively prove he was complicit in abuse and misconduct.

I would urge you to read the whole report for yourself, just so you are informed for yourself. It's no use burying your head in the sand. Ravi wasn't the first high-profile Christian thought leader to be found behaving badly, and he won't be the last, but we do need to make ourselves aware of high-profile people using their power and authority to abuse others, especially those who are vulnerable.

-----

RZIM Open Letter: https://www.rzim.org/read/rzim-updates/board-statement

Yes. This was abuse. There are no bones about it. Not just abuse, but manipulation, secrecy and control - exactly what cults do.

I applaud the willingness by RZIM to engage an independent firm to conduct investigations, and for releasing that report. My advice to them would be to now drop the RZ from RZIM and make a new start. RZIM was built of the public profile of RZ, and now we know RZ was a creep.

I am now going to comment on certain aspects of the report.


EMPLOYMENT AND CORPORATE PRACTICES:


The fact that the two spas he allegedly co-owned hired very few, if any, therapists with proper training or qualifications is damning enough in itself. If indeed he did own the massage therapy places, it really does read like he set up massage therapy businesses simply to make a cynical dollar.

Set up a massage therapy place, hire low skilled and unlicensed people, pay them minimum wage, done!

To quote the report: 

"We refer to all of them as “therapists” or “massage therapists,” although as this report reveals not all of the individuals who provided Mr. Zacharias with massage services were trained and licensed therapists." and; 

"One spa he frequented was closed down, and its owner’s massage therapy license revoked, for hiring unlicensed therapists."


To further quote the report:

"Mr. Zacharias is not listed on incorporation documents filed with the Georgia Secretary of State for either company, and he did not appear to have any role in managing the day-to-day operations of the spas. He told one massage therapist he was a silent investor in both spas…"


Which means Ravi was lying to someone: either he was lying to the massage therapist when he said he was a silent investor, or he was lying to the government when his name somehow did not get listed on any corporate paperwork for the businesses.

This, to me, is a cynical ploy to take the credit, but deflect responsibility - "I'm the famous man of God, and when things are going well, look at the money I'm secretly making…but if things go wrong, I know nothing!"


INTERACTIONS WITH THERAPISTS:


The report notes that while he was professional with numerous massage therapists, there were a number of them who he took advantage of, or definitely attempted to take advantage of.

To quote the report:

"Several massage therapists confirmed Mr. Zacharias’s frequent efforts to “try for more than a massage,” as one therapist put it. Eight therapists reported that Mr. Zacharias would start the massage either completely nude or would remove the sheets during the massage. Six therapists reported that he always or almost always had an erection during the massage. Four therapists reported that he would either touch his genitals or ask them to touch his genitals. And five therapists reported that he touched or rubbed them inappropriately."


But what is concerning is that he played off of his reputation and his charm to get people to drop their defences:

"…aspects of Mr. Zacharias’s behavior towards this witness were similar to his conduct with other therapists, specifically: the use of ministry funds to provide financial support, the effort to elicit personal information about a difficult past, and Mr. Zacharias’s use of religious language during their encounters…She reported that after he arranged for the ministry to provide her with financial support, he required sex from her. According to this witness, Mr. Zacharias used religious expressions to gain compliance, as she was raised to be a person of faith. She reported that he made her pray with him to thank God for the “opportunity” they both received".


"The therapists he reportedly targeted for “more than a massage” discussed a similar modus operandi of building their trust and making them feel at ease. As one put it, he “wasn’t frisky initially.” Some therapists described a process that began with probing conversation and him asking about their families and backgrounds, often delving into deeply personal issues such as financial struggles or emotionally broken backgrounds"


"Another therapist also refused when he asked her to “go lower” and massage closer to his genitals, and she admonished him on several occasions when he would start touching himself. He asked this same person to travel overseas to massage him on trips, but she was not comfortable with him and was afraid she would not be able to afford a plane ticket home if she felt the need to return early."

This man is not creepy at all. No.

You have to remember that Ravi is effectively their boss, if his reported words to the therapist are to be believed. As an investor, he wields a form of authority.


SECRETIVE TRIPS TO ASIA:


The report notes that Ravi would travel to Asia, often alone, where he would write books by day, and get treatment on his back at night.

"In addition to finding alone time when he travelled with others, Mr. Zacharias travelled alone to Bangkok and other parts of Southeast Asia for substantial periods of time. RZIM staff described these as writing trips where he would work on his latest book. On such trips, he would stay for days and sometimes weeks alone. According to a text message to a Thai masseuse in February 2016, he spent his days writing and his nights receiving massage treatments."


"We also learned that for several years, Mr. Zacharias owned two apartments in Bangkok…between 2010 and 2014 he spent a total of 256 days in one of these apartments…the other apartment, in the same building but on a different floor, housed one of his massage therapists. An entry on Mr. Zacharias’s phone for the lower floor unit includes this massage therapist’s initials."


Why travel to south-east Asia to write a book and get massage therapy, when you could easily find solitude in places much closer to home and find licensed professionals to do the job? 

To me, there is no way that he's spending long periods of time, alone, in one of the hotspots of Asian sex tourism, and not having illicit sex.


FINANCIAL SECRETS:

On top his two apartments, one which was used to house his personal masseuse, was this:

"between 2010 and 2014 he spent a total of 256 days in one of these apartments and sought rent reimbursement from RZIM for those stays"

I think it's a bit cynical to seek money from your company to stay in places that you already own. The only way I would excuse this is as a tax dodge. Otherwise, it comes across as being cynical and greedy.

We also come to his slush fund.

"Mr. Zacharias also used his ministry to financially support some of his long-term therapists. According to a description in the Notes application of one of Mr. Zacharias’s phones, Touch of Hope (“TOH”) was a “humanitarian effort on the part of RZIM meeting short term needs for long term gains.” We learned it was a purely discretionary fund and no clear guidelines governing how money would be granted….in reviewing documents provided by RZIM we noticed that a significant portion of the wire payments from that fund went to or for the benefit of four women—all of whom were at times Mr. Zacharias’s massage therapists…each of these four women received monthly support from TOH for extended periods of time."


This now raises a valid question - when an ordinary person donates to a famous (or even not-so-famous) Christian ministry, we have a right to know what percentage of that goes to hush money, discretionary spending on women who do the famous preacher sexual favours, money to reimburse someone for staying in properties they already own, etc.

In Australia, we have what is called the Charities & Not-For-Profit Commission (CNC), in which every organisation that wants a tax break for charitable or religious purposes has to submit yearly reports, much like a corporation does. Maybe the US needs something like that as well.

PHOTOS OF WOMEN:

The report also notes that Ravi had been sent images of numerous photos of women, by those women, and his multiple electronic devices stored photos of those women in various states of undress.

Now, if those women willingly and knowingly did so, this actually isn't a problem. Sexual communication between two willing participants is not a moral crime in itself. The downside of this is that I really don't want to to think about Ravi Zacharias sending his own nudes in return - the mental image of wrinkly preacher dick turns me off my lunch. The only saving grace is that cameras on phones 10 years ago weren't as sharp as they are now, so at least it's not 4K HDR photos of wrinkly preacher dick…

But what I suspect is that he maniupated numerous women in to sending those compromising photos of themselves, using that veneer of charm, confidence, security and safety that he is known for. This then becomes is a moral crime.


USE OF THE VENEER OF RESPECTABILITY AND PASSIVE-AGGRESSION TO DEFLECT CRITICISM:

To me, the most egregious violation of ethics is highlighted by these lines of the report:

"A high-level RZIM staff member expressed concerns to Mr. Zacharias about it and encouraged him to stop travelling with her. In response, Mr. Zacharias grew angry and barely spoke to this staff member for a long period of time. He was effectively “sent to Siberia,” as another staff member recalled. Their relationship never fully recovered."

And this:


"Several RZIM staff reported to us his “shifting narrative” as emails and other relevant facts were publicly leaked and he was forced to explain them. Rather than fostering an environment of truth-seeking and transparency, Mr. Zacharias was strident and inflammatory. He described his critics as “nasty people” and “lunatics” who were engaging in “‘satanic-type’ slander and falsehood.” Some RZIM staff told us that he expressed frustration with having to issue an apology at all. He was able to convince many that not only was he innocent, he was the victim of malicious “evil.” At an all-staff virtual meeting in January 2018, after significant details of the Thompson communications had been made public, Mr. Zacharias offered explanations that many staff members found nonsensical. But some staff members reported to us that when they expressed doubts about Mr. Zacharias’s story, they were ignored, marginalized, and accused of disloyalty"


And this:


"Another former RZIM staff member reported similar treatment from Mr. Zacharias when he raised questions about Mr. Zacharias’s conduct in and solo travel to Asia. As a result, he was “demonized” by Mr. Zacharias, who accused him of spreading rumors."


And this:


"Mr. Zacharias’s response to the Thompson allegations—including explanations of his emails with Ms. Thompson that surfaced on the internet—raised questions about his credibility. We interviewed witnesses within RZIM who were not satisfied with Mr. Zacharias’s explanations, and some reported their belief that they were marginalized for raising questions."


Ravi CLEARLY used his power, in the form of manipulation, ostracisation and demonisation in order to deflect criticism. And furthermore, his own staff only found out about the incriminating information via leaks. This is how cults work. Control information, come down hard on people who even DARE to criticise the great leader, selectively ostracise.

It's interesting to note that Jesus said, "if you are at the altar and remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift at the altar, be reconciled to your brother and then come back and offer your gift". It seems Ravi had a selective memory.


I was also quite taken aback by this:

"In response, Mr. Zacharias sued the Thompsons in federal court for extortion under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute on July 31, 2017. The Thompsons and Mr. Zacharias mediated and confidentially resolved their disputes in late fall 2017. The resolution reportedly included a nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”)."


Ravi Zacharias, a man who represents God to the world and who trades off his reputation as a righteous man, sued a woman who he manipulated in to sending nude photos to him, under legislation meant to tackle organised crime and drug cartels. RICO has been used to charge the Hells Angels, the Gambino crime family and FIFA, and now this man used RICO to effectively persecute a woman who did his own bidding for the crime of making known that she wasn't going to cop his manipulation anymore.


The man was a slimeball.




Biblical Family Values - Five Uncomfortable Facts (Part 2)

In the next topic of my controversial series, I want to cover the issues of abortion and its close relative infanticide.

My summary: God has no problem with pregnancies being involuntarily terminated, and even if a pregnancy hasn't been terminated, God otherwise has no problem killing young children if it suits his purposes.

This is an uncomfortable fact.

-----

I have no problems per se with Christians being opposed to abortion. If you don't like or agree with something, you don't like or agree with that something.
The bigger problem I have is when Christians are opposed to abortion because they say "the Bible shows God is opposed to abortion", or that "the Bible shows God treasures little children", or when Christians deliberately inflict psychological or physical harm on those seeking abortions, or when Christians kill abortion doctors.

[Personal opinion: I am neither for nor against abortion - my mind is yet to be made up, though I was stridently anti-abortion when I was a theist. In my estimation, there are salient points on both sides of the equation. However, I do believe that a woman has the right to do with her body what she wishes, provided she is not breaking any laws, and I also advocate for the position that if you don't like abortions, then don't get one]

But here, I want to take you through the Bible to see what it has to say about those topics.

(All Bible passages below have been taken from the NIV translation, from BibleGateway.com, with paraphrasing and emphasis added)

-----

Part 1: God is not anti-abortion.

I recently had a chat with a person who is clearly on the anti-abortion side of the fence. But imagine the surprise on his face when I told him that God actually advocates abortion.
He told me he didn't believe me, so I got my internet machine out and showed him Numbers 5:11-29 (paraphrased and emphasis added) -
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— then he is to take his wife to the priest...
“‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord...Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” 
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it. 
“‘The priest is...to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 

I read through the passage with him and he was genuinely surprised. So it seems that even anti-abortionist Christians aren't fully aware of what their own scripture says.

But now for some hard questions from the above passage:

According to the above passage, under what conditions does a woman fail this test? By being pregnant.

How would the husband suspect his wife has been unfaithful

In a culture that was so focused on when a woman was on her period, to the point that a woman who is menstruating is considered unclean (as per Leviticus 15:19-30), any object she touches while she is on her period makes that object unclean, and even touching a woman who is menstruating makes that man unclean, there's really only one way a husband can suspect his wife has been unfaithful - his wife is pregnant. And if she became pregnant without her husband's involvement, then it's grounds to strongly suspect infidelity.

According to the above passage, what indicates that the woman has failed the test? By having her womb miscarry - you can't miscarry if there is no womb to miscarry.

What is another word for an involuntary or forced miscarriage? Abortion.


And remember, the verse I quoted above was not some obscure law that the Israelites made for themselves, it was God speaking directly to Moses!

So abortion as punishment for personal transgression is not off the cards.

-----

What about abortion as punishment for national transgression? You know, punishment for national-level crimes? It seems God has no problem with that as well. In fact, God obviously considers it just recompense when pregnant women are forcibly mutilated and their foetuses removed (abortion by another method) because the people who it happens to deserve what is coming to them - they are bearing their guilt, after all!

Don't believe me? Hosea 13:16 (emphasis added) -

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.

So as well as approving little children being murdered by blunt force trauma (for what else does 'dashed to the ground' mean?), it seems God is also OK with abortion, his prophets are OK with abortion (otherwise they wouldn't have passed the message on), and the people who compiled and canonised the Bible were OK with abortion as well - otherwise someone would have tampered with the manuscripts to remove that passage (and believe me, Christians had no problem doing this exact thing).

So why are modern-day Christians against abortion if their God has no problem with it?

Or, the harder question: On what scriptural ground can Christians stand on to claim abortion is against God's plan?

Answer: Not much. The best anti-abortion Christians can do are to find oblique verses like "I am fearfully and wonderfully made", and then try to claim God's plan is for people to live long and happy lives, when scripture clearly shows God has no problem killing people to suit his purposes.

-----

Further to these Bible passages are little-known passages from the Jewish scriptures:

According to Yevamot 69b:
"And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the foetus is merely water"
So even in the first six weeks of pregnancy, the foetus is considered merely water - no rights or protections are inferred or granted.

This brings up a contradiction: according to anti-abortion Christians, a foetus already has a heartbeat at six weeks. Yet God's chosen people say that a foetus is merely water.

How does water have a heartbeat? Something doesn't add up here.


Then, according to mOholot 7:8:
If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.
What this means that if the mother's life is in danger and the baby is not greater than halfway out of the birth canal, then a late-term abortion (by dismemberment, no less) is permitted.
However, if the baby has emerged more than halfway out of the birth canal, then it is recognised as a person with a right to life.

And according to Mishnah Arakhin 1:4 -
If a woman is about to be executed, they do not wait for her until she gives birth. But if she had already sat on the birthstool, they wait for her until she gives birth.
In short - if a woman is sentenced to death and she is pregnant, the execution goes ahead. Both the mother and unborn baby die.
If a woman is sentenced to death and she is about to give birth, she is required to give birth then be executed.

It would seems from these passages that according to the pre-Christian scriptures, a person is not considered a person (conferring full rights and protections) until they are at least halfway out of the womb.


So not even Judaism, from which Christianity originated and shares a large number of scriptures with, has a problem with abortion or the death of the pre-born (though with caveats).

I think it is blatantly hypocritical for Christians to use Jewish scriptures and concepts when it suits them (such as the 10 Commandments), but then baulk when the same Jewish scriptures and concepts they would otherwise revere (like when it says something wise or profound) says something that is contrary to their opinions.

But the long and the short of all this is either:

1. God changed his mind on abortion so that he was OK with abortion pre-New Testament, but now all of a sudden abortion is evil and from the pits of hell. However, this then clashes with the notion that God is unchanging, is not deceptive and never changes his mind. Or;

2. The Jews had it right when their scriptures (which is claimed to be as divinely inspired as what Christians claim the whole Bible is) sanctioned abortion (under some conditions), thus, Christians do not have the right theology when it comes to abortion.

Which one is it?

---

But all of this looks past one very large and looming inconvenient fact:

Anywhere between 15% and 31% of all pregnancies (depending on classification criteria) end in miscarriage - the pregnancy ends through no fault or intentional action of anyone involved.

Since fundamentalist Christians are (very strongly) of the opinion that life begins at conception, then given the incredibly high number of pregnancies that fail, we have no other option but to conclude that God is the most prolific abortionist of them all.

-----

Part 2: God does not treasure little children.

One: Hard question - how many children does God have to either personally kill, decree to be killed, or oversee and approve their killing, before you start saying God has no problem killing children? One? Two? Forty? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?

There surely is a line somewhere where you, the Christian who worships the everlasting and eternal God, start to think that your concept of God is wrong.

Let's go through the answers, and prepare to be challenged.

---

One child? 2 Samuel 12:15-18 (paraphrased, NIV, emphasis added)
 ...the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground...on the seventh day the child died.

In this passage, God kills a child because its parents sinned. That seems completely fair and righteous.

---

Two children? We take the one child from above and add 1 Kings 14:10-12 (paraphrased, emphasis added, NIV text) -
Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel...The Lord has spoken!’“As for you, go back home. When you set foot in your city, the boy will die"

So God orders a divine hit on Jeroboam's son...to save Jeroboam's son from dying later on, when God executed Jeroboam's family (via divine hit).

This omnipotent and loving God loved this innocent child so much that he killed the child immediately to stop him being killed later when he kills other people! That makes perfect sense

---

How about forty children? Would the killing of forty children help you think God is evil. Then read 2 Kings 2:23-24 -
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
These children wouldn't have died unless God agreed with the prophet and caused the bears to miraculously appear to maul them.

But this passage raises two questions - one, if God can do anything, why did God need to resort to violence to solve this problem, and two, how would you be being the parent of one of these children and seeing the body of your precious loved one mutilated because God's man on earth had his feelings hurt? Pretty crummy, I think.

---

How about hundreds of children? Would killing hundreds of children make you change your mind about God?

Now, with this passage I am being conservative with the numbers, but let's look at God either approving or ordering the deaths of children of the Midianite nation (which would have numbered thousands, thus incorporating at least hundreds of children) in Numbers 31 (paraphrased, emphasis added).
The Lord said to Moses, “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people. 
So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them...They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man... 
The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps.
Moses was angry with the officers of the army..."Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Let's consider what this text describes - God tells Moses to carry out vengeance on the Midianites, and in God's economy, vengeance is shorthand for mass murder - because when God gets angry, people die.
The Israelites kill all the men, they capture all the women and children and then they literally burn their towns to the ground.

However Moses, who is God's own man on the scene, is not pleased - he not only wants the women killed (maybe Midianite woman are irresistible, and sex with foreign women is bad in God's eyes), but he also wants all the boys killed. What the young boys have ever done to deserve being slaughtered, the scripture doesn't make clear, but then the next part is nothing short of human rights violation (if it wasn't already):

Moses commands the Israelite leaders to capture all the young women who have never had sex with a man (because, again, sex must be bad), with the specific wording 'save for yourselves' (which means take as a possession to keep), but the question is, how do the Israelites tell who has ever had sex?

[Some cultural context, first: In Jewish culture, a girl is not considered a woman until she is twelve years and one day old. So we're talking about pre-teen girls here]

By forcibly inspecting the genitals of the young girls. Yes, it's that crude.

This is what should horrify not only Christians, but people who have any sense of decency and morality:

Young girls have just had their mothers, their fathers and their brothers killed by God's chosen people. This was assured. 
Any older sisters who had married and started their own families were also killed by God's chosen people
Their towns and possessions have been burnt to the ground, so even if they were to survive and escape, they now have no home to go back to and nothing of their former life to keep.

The only way these little girls can stay alive is by either submitting willingly to having their vaginas opened and peered in to by the same people who had no problem murdering your family, or by having their clothes ripped off, their legs forced apart and then having a group of lecherous militia men force their vaginas open for crude inspection.

And the end result of this is that those girls who the Israelites who have ever had sex, they die. If they're lucky, they die by the sword. If they're unlucky, they get stoned. If they're really unlucky, they get set alight and left to die in burning agony.

And the ones who don't die, they become sex slaves.

There is no way to white-wash or sugarcoat this. This was a crime against humanity. And Christians worship a God who oversaw and commanded crimes against humanity.

---

Now, let's consider the intentional killing of thousands of children. Would the intentional killing of thousands of children, including infants, persuade you that God does not care if children die?

If it does, I have just the scripture for you. Exodus 12. Or if you don't remember the Bible chapter-and-verse, it's the part of the Bible that retells the last plague on Egypt before the exodus.
At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.(Exodus 12:29-30)

There was not a house without someone dead. Literally every family in Egypt had a child die, regardless of their status or rank.
And the Bible proudly says that it was the Lord (i.e. God himself) who did the killing.

However, not only does this passage confirm God has no problem killing children if he thinks it serves a higher purpose (God is the ultimate pragmatist), but the intended effect, Pharaoh letting the Israelites go, was reversed barely two chapters later.

Exodus 12:30 - 

During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Up! Leave my people, you and the Israelites! Go, worship the Lord as you have requested

Exodus 14:5 -
When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, “What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!”
And who changed Pharaoh's mind? It was God himself!

Exodus 14:4 -

And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them..
So God kills a nation's worth of children to convince the emperor to let his chosen people leave the country, then deliberately manipulates the emotions of that emperor to try get the people that he just let go to come back, but all this is just a ruse so that God can create a natural disaster to kill that emperor's army.

---

However, now for the big one - would God killing millions upon millions of children convince you that God does not care about children?

If you're not convinced by now, then you have already sacrificed your humanity to skirt around the cognitive possibility that God could be evil. If facts and logic won't convince you, then there is nothing more I can say, except get a new religion.

But if you have any semblance of decency and humanity left, then read on...

The flood of Noah was a divinely-manufactured natural disaster that was created for the express purpose of killing the entire world.

So, how many people died during the flood? The answer I'm happiest accepting is that of 20 million, given how primitive agricultural practices would have been. 

However, Answers In Genesis give numbers of between 750 million and 4 billion people pre-Noachian flood, and Lambert Dolphin's website gives an approximation of between 5 billion and 17 billion people. To me, these are unbelievable numbers which actually make the problem worse - much, much worse.

Question: How many children would have been drowned in the flood of Noah?

If we go by a figure given the Australian Law Reform Commission, children make up 28% of the population of Australia, a first-world country with a very high quality of life, so I'm happy to use the quoted figure the purposes of this exercise.

Keep in mind, however, that in agrarian societies the percentage of children with regards to the overall population would have been higher given the higher mortality rates - but I'm happy to be conservative and stick with the 28% figure.

Let's run some numbers -

At 28% of the population, and given that virtually everyone in the world at the time of Noah's flood died, we can then work out how many children died.

28% of 20 million is 5.6 million.

28% of 750 million is 210 million.

28% of 4 billion is 1.12 billion.

28% of 5 billion is 1.14 billion.

28% of 17 billion 4.76 billion.

For the flood of Noah, we can reasonably conclude God killed anywhere between 5.6 million and 4.76 billion children.

This is simply horrifying.

But this all overlooks something - if you or I came up with a plan that involved killing even one child, be it deliberately or as collateral damage, we would rightly be called a felon, a psychopath, a monster, or even a war criminal.

But God can seemingly kill upwards of 5.6 million children (by a very conservative estimate) and this is considered the height of wisdom and love.

Give me a break.

Two: God is happy when babies are thrown off of cliffs.

Why else would God inspire someone to write, in his chosen book:
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
- Psalm 137:9 (ESV text)
Yes, this psalm was written as a lament and a rant against Babylon, but still, either God wanted this in his chosen book, or the people who edited the Bible had no problem with this verse being in the part of the Bible that supposedly is the most worshipful.

But think about it - a baby has been removed from its mother (probably after the mother has been chopped up with a sword), and someone stands over the side of a cliff and drops that baby down.

Or, even more horrifying, the mother has to watch, in sheer terror and heartache, as her baby is dropped over a cliff.


And God's chosen book says blessed is the man who does this.

-----

Thank you for reading all the way through, and if I have offended you, I'm not sorry. Go get a better set of morals to live your life by.

Stay cool, stay healthy, stay rational.

-Damien