Remember back in Exodus when God told the Israelites that all of their firstborn beasts were to be burned and all of the firstborn sons were to be sanctified because God owns them both? It turns out that the reason he owns them is because he murdered all of Egypt’s firstborn. Yes, you probably didn’t know this, but if you kill the firstborn son of someone’s enemy, you not only own their firstborn son, but you also own their ancestor’s firstborn sons forever into perpetuity. That’s logic folks! And here you were thinking owning another human being was immoral! Fools.

God says that he is taking the firstborn Levites as his property instead of all of the firstborn sons among the Israelites, but in the very same breath he reminds Moses that all the firstborn sons of the Israelites are his, be they man or beast, and then once more for good measure, he says that they’re all his. Numbers 3:11-13 is difficult to parse. Which firstborn sons are the property of God, just the Levites or all of the Israelites? According to the passage both conclusions are true, yet they’re contradictory.

Contradiction aside, God is just acting like a spoiled brat. All civilized societies agree that one of the basic human rights is independent autonomy—you can’t own another human. Just because you helped them out of a bind doesn’t mean you own them, and it certainly doesn’t mean you get to own their unborn children! This just goes to show that the authors of the bible, and subsequently their god, do not understand the concept of basic human rights.



HiroOdan writes:


This is the same God that sends you to Hell for not believing in him. I think it's very in character for him to want more than that. Yet he loves everyone. *snerk*

Maju writes:


"All civilized societies agree that one of the basic human rights is independent autonomy"...

Not really, Guru. Only illustrated societies, civilized or tribal alike (most often tribal than civilized in fact).

Human rights have been ignored and stomped on for most the history of civilizations. Actually civilization and human rights, especially freedom, are almost totally opposed, with the occasional exception. Civilization is about organizing lots of people and the most common way to do that is via oppression and inequality. Slavery is at the very heart of agrarian (or pastoralist) civilization. This god like most others only embodies such social ideas into an imaginary form to be worshiped: obey those in charge and don't ask questions... or be horribly punished for your sin.

Religion is how they spelled Fascism in the old days.

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


Good point Maju! I guess I should be using the phrase, "enlightened societies."

Maju writes:


Thanks, Guru. As post-statement, I think that "illustrated" or "enlightened" may be a bit too grandiose, especially for tribal societies, so maybe "free societies" or "freedom-loving societies" would be more the idea.


Oh the irony!