PH
The God of the Bible: Forcing out the Genocidal, Infanticidal, and Filicidal
1/31/2015 You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. 55 Comments
We come to the other charges of an evolutionary biologist against the God of the Bible that He is genocidal, infanticidal, and filicidal.
These shocking definitions come from Richard Dawkins who, until lately, is known as the most famous atheist. In recent debates with some clergy, Dawkins has described himself as an agnostic and “cannot disprove the existence of God,” prompting the religious to call on atheists to look for another leader. Dawkins, after all, is not a militant secularist although he would like the world to believe he is one. For all his mudslinging at the God of the Bible, he admittedly “cannot disprove the existence of God.”
Nevertheless, in coming up with a book where has earned a fortune and still is, Dawkins called God, among other descriptions, “genocidal, infanticidal, and filicidal.”
Genocide is defined in the dictionary as murder of an entire ethnic group: the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this.
Infanticide is defined as the act of killing infants or a newborn baby.
And filicide means killing of one’s own child.
The -al variations, of course, are adjectives. If God were genocidal, infanticidal, filicidal, that means he is capable of doing all these, has done them, is doing them, or tends to do them – along the terms that Dawkins understands.
But all these charges of Dawkins against the God of the Bible redounds to him bull's eye! In writing for Daily Mail of UK (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.), George Pitcher on December 16, 2011, exposed the mind of Dawkins who asked another atheist, Christopher Hitchens, 'Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?'
Titled “Professor Richard Dawkins makes a festive vow to 'destroy Christianity,'” Pitcher wrote -
Hitchens is thoughtful about CS Lewis and Christianity and rather leaves Prof. Dawkins floundering in his wake, occasionally interjecting little assents to show that he's still there, as he struggles to keep up.
But one of these interjections is most revealing. About half-way through, the Prof gets this in edgeways: 'Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?'
For background, very few of the major atheists have come into the open, declaring that their purpose is to destroy Christianity. Their intent is usually limited to simple criticism, open dialogue. But here comes Dawkins.
In an interview with Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins queries the late atheist whether he has considered a scenario wherein they win and destroy Christianity. Should that happen, would the vacuum be filled by Islam?
Dawkins denied later on that he said this but George Pitcher stands pat on what he wrote. The reporter of Daily Mail said Hitchens was an atheist while he lived but did not have “destroy Christianity” as an agenda.
So, Dawkin’s unfulfilled plan to destroy all Christianity is definitely genocidal! If the God of the Bible were genocidal, no atheist would be alive today!
As part of the comments on George Pitcher’s article, a reader from United Kingdom said the speech of Dawkins should be monitored closely. Imagine having a dream of destroying Christianity, calling religion as virus, and impressing that teaching children about God is child abuse.
This kind of speech should be monitored closely. To "destroy" people, to label religious views as a "virus" and to bring children up in Christianity as "child abuse" are all things he has said. This kind of talk would not be out of place in Nazi Germany. We have to be very careful.
King David, after experiencing cruelty and bitterness from his enemies with whom he had done no wrong, prayed that God may destroy them all.
PSALMS 109:4-5, 13
4 For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.
5 And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
PSALMS 83:17
Let them be confounded and troubled forever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:
Although David was a favored man of God, God did not hearken unto him! Why? Because He is not genocidal.
II PETER 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
God ordering the annihilation of the Canaanites was not being genocidal. The order was an execution of judgment against a people or a nation of infanticides and filicides! This is about a race needing to be blotted out because of what they did to their children (child sacrifice, free ***, child prostitution, and the like). Their culture did not merit being preserved.
DEUTERONOMY 12:29-31
29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;
30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
How can a God that abhors infanticide, Himself be infanticidal and filicidal? In truth, it is Dawkins who is infanticidal and certainly filicidal when he advised someone in twitter asking a hypothetical question to abort her child!
God would never agree to hurt an unborn fetus! Unlike Dawkins who arrogates to himself some authority as to who should live and who should die, here is what the God of the Bible says -
EXODUS 21:22-24
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
By God's law Richard Dawkins merits death for being genocidal, infanticidal, and filicidal!
Forgetting Richard Dawkins, let us discover from the Bible the gentleness and the loving kindness of the God of the Bible.
God takes care of a baby from conception to adulthood until death.
Before a baby is born, the mammary glands of the mother works in preparing all the necessary ingredients of life and the defenses for the baby's well-being. The ****** of a feeding mother is nature-tuned for her to remember that her baby must be fed at the right moment.
An authority on breastfeeding, Kelly Bonyata, wrote on August 31, 2011 (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) -
During *******cy and the first few days postpartum, milk supply is hormonally driven – this is called the endocrine control system. Essentially, as long as the proper hormones are in place, mom will start making colostrum about halfway through *******cy (Lactogenesis I) and her milk will increase in volume (Lactogenesis II) around 30-40 hours after birth.
According to her, earlier researchers observed that milk volume is typically greater in the morning hours and falls gradually as the day progresses. Quoting Hurgoiu (1985), she wrote that fat content tends to increase as the day progresses. These observations are consistent with current research where babies were found to normally have longer sleep at night and gradually decreases the amount of time between nursing as the day progresses.
ISAIAH 49:15
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
God is protecting each growing child by his injunctions to parents to care for their children. He placed those paternal instincts in their consciousness.
I TIMOTHY 5:8 (RSV)
If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
EPHESIANS 6:4
And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
These laws are not only protective measures but penalties go with those uncaring and disobeying parents!
REVELATION 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
An uncaring parent is worse than an infidel or unbeliever, and infidels are destined to the lake of fire. At the age of puberty, a ****** is placed under the protection of the father.
I CORINTHIANS 7:37 (RSV)
Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his ******, doeth well.
How can the God of the Bible that cares for a human being from conception until adulthood be infanticidal, filicidal, and genocidal?
Back to Dawkins, surely, he doesn't deserve to be a professor! He is a MONSTER!!!
Arguably, Dawkins is the most repulsive character around - not in fiction - but in the physical, spiritual, and mental reality!
nah just saying