A Moral Case against Christianity

0. Introduction and some terminology.

1. Preliminary issues.
1.1. Moral realism, theism and counterpossible scenarios.
1.2. The Bible and the sources of moral knowledge.
1.3. Sovereignty.
1.4. Who are we to judge God?
1.5. Assessing the morality of hypothetical characters and/or their actions.
1.6. Assessing whether a religion is true on moral grounds.
1.7. Our sense of right and wrong and Christianity.
1.8. The Fall.
1.9. The Old Testament and Christianity.
1.10. Hell and Christianity.
1.11. Not a moral agent?
1.12. Context.
2. Some legal dispositions in the Old Testament.
2.1. Local matters.
2.1.1. Sex outside marriage, adultery and rape.
2.1.2. Consensual sex outside marriage, or rape?
2.1.3. More on sex outside marriage, adultery and rape.
2.1.4. Forbidden marriages.
2.1.5. Priesthood and prostitution.
2.1.6. Men who have sex with men.
2.1.7. Inter-species sex.
2.1.8. Evil oxen?
2.1.9. Assorted commands and moral claims or implications.

2.1.10. The hardness of the hearts of the ancient Israelites.

2.2. Foreign affairs
2.2.1. Distant cities.
2.2.2. Dealing with some neighbors.
3. Some events described in the Old Testament.
3.1.The Flood.
3.2. Egypt.
3.3. Canaan.
3.4. Amalek.
3.5. Uriah.
3.6. The Sabbath.
3.7. Mass murder of captives, mass rape, and sex slavery.
3.8. Noah, Ham, and Canaan.
4. The New Testament and the Old Testament. Some of the links.
4.1 Jesus and the Old Testament.
4.1.1. Old Testament Law sufficed until the time of John.
4.1.2. Some curses.
4.1.3. The Transfiguration.
4.1.4. Jesus, Yahweh and the Ten Commandments.
4.1.5. After Jesuss resurrection.
4.2. Paul and the Old Testament.
4.2.1. Paul and Old Testament Law.
4.2.1.1. Acts 24.
4.2.1.2. Acts 28.
4.2.1.3. Romans 2 and 3.
4.2.1.4. Romans 7.
4.2.1.5. 1 Corinthians 9.
4.2.1.6. Galatians 3.
4.2.2. Paul and some events in the Old Testament. Literal interpretation.

4.2.2.1 Acts 13. Canaan.

4.2.2.2. Romans 9. Egypt.
4.2.3. More on Paul and the Old Testament. 2 Timothy 3.
4.3. Stephen and Moses.
4.4. Peter and the Old Testament.
4.4.1. 2 Peter 2. The Flood.
4.4.2. 2 Peter 2. Lot and his daughters.
4.5. The Letter to The Hebrews and the Old Testament.
4.5.1. Hebrews 1. A historic link.
4.5.2. Hebrews 3. Moses, Egypt, and the Exodus.
4.5.3. Hebrews 6, 7 and 8. More detailed historic accounts.
4.5.4. Hebrews 9. Old Testament Law.
4.5.5. Hebrews 10. Old Testament Law.
4.5.6. Hebrews 11. Faith, the Flood, treason and more.
4.5.7. Hebrews 12. Moses, and Old Testament Law.
4.5.8. Hebrews 13. Moses, Joshua, and more.
5. Some of Jesuss commandments, moral claims or implications.
5.1. Jesus commands that people love Yahweh.
5.2. Jesus commands that some people love their neighbors as they love themselves.
5.3. Some family values.
5.4. The Sermon on the Mount.
5.4.1. Jesus and Old Testament Law.
5.4.2. Jesus accuses some people of adultery.
5.4.3. Jesus accuses some more people of adultery.
5.4.4. Jesus commands some people to turn the other cheek.
5.4.5. Jesus commands that some people love their enemies.
5.4.6. Jesus, Yahweh and forgiveness.
5.4.7. Jesus commands that some people refrain from judging others.
5.4.8. Jesus and the Golden Rule.

6. Hell.
6.1. Infinite Hell vs. finite Hell or no Hell.
6.2. Hell as a place of torment vs. Hell as some state of mind or state of being.
6.3. Hell as imposed vs. Hell as chosen by the damned.
6.4. The immorality of Hell.
7. Heaven.
8. Conclusions.
Notes and references.
0. Introduction and some terminology.
a. In this essay, I will make a moral case against Christianity based on assessing the morality of some
of the actions carried out byYahweh, as described in the Bible, as well some of the actions of some of
his servants, followers, etc.
b. I will not define Christianity, but will try to make this case as broad as I can, in order to encompass
nearly all if not all religions that go by the name Christianity[0] At least, I will address all versions
Ive encountered.
c. One of the sources of the biblical passages is the Open English Bible [1], a public domain modern
translation. The color of the text is not the same as in the original, and neither is the font, but other than
that, the quotations are faithful. I invite readers to check the original in case of doubt. [1]
The abbreviation OEB indicates that a passages is from the Open English Bible.
d. Another source is another common public domain modern translation. [2].
The abbreviation GWEB indicates that a passage is from that version its essentially the World
English Bible
I will use those two translations for the most part, though I might use others with or without quoting
from them, though of course I will identify them as well, in some cases.
e. In any case, most other translations are relevantly similar in the passages I will assess, but I invite
readers to check other translations if they have any doubts.
f. I will use the term Yahweh as the name of the entity partially described in the Bible, and claimed to
be the creator, lord, etc.

A potential source of ambiguity is the fact that different versions of Christianity accept different books
as parts of the Bible. However, this is not a problem, since I will make arguments covering all versions
at least as far as I know -, and in any event, I will also address some potential objections like that
passage is not inspired, and the like, when I think its needed or useful.
Also, the fact that the most common versions of Christianity posit a trinity presents a challenge when it
comes to choosing the meaning of the term Yahweh. More precisely, there is a question of whether to
use the word Yahweh to name only the father, or the whole trinity.
For example, lets consider the following passage:
GWEB:
Deuteronomy
6:4 Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one: 6:5 and you shall love Yahweh
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. 6:6
These words, which I command you this day, shall be on your heart; 6:7 and you shall
teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your
house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
Given the usual Christian belief we should love not only the father, but Jesus and the third person as
well, this passage and the ones that follow it suggests using the word Yahweh to name the trinity.
On the other hand, lets consider the following passage:
GWEB:
2 Samuel
12:11 This is what Yahweh says: 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your
own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your
neighbor, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12: 12 For you did it
secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.'"
In the context of the most common versions of Christianity i.e., assuming a trinity -, this passage
suggests thats what the father said.
So, leaving aside potential arguments against a trinity which are not the matter of this essay -, this
raises the issue of choosing the terminology in this moral case.
I dont find any choice entirely satisfactory, but I will adopt the following rules:

f.1. I will use the name 'Yahweh to name the entity partially described in the Bible, and claimed
to be the creator, lord, etc., without assuming in general that Yahweh is or is not a trinity, and I
will consider different alternatives when thats required to make a point, clarification, etc.
f.2. In passages that attribute some words to Yahweh, such as 2 Samuel 12:11, I will interpret that
as a claim that the entity in question said that, without denying that, more specifically, a proper
interpretation considering also the New Testament is that the father made the claim in question.
g. I will use the word God to mean an entity that at least meets the following conditions:
g.1. Hes the creator of all other beings, directly or indirectly.
g.1.1. When I say creator of all other beings, Im not talking about abstracta. I dont think
numbers, propositions, etc., are beings.
However, there is no need to settle that matter here: readers who hold that abstracta should
be included in an ontology should replace 'beings with concrete beings above.
g.1.2. I say directly or indirectly to indicate that I do not rule out that some being might be
created by some being other than God even if God exists, as long as there is a chain of
creators that reaches God as the origin.
g.1.3. As an alternative, condition g.1. can be replaced by g.1', which states that God is the
creator of the universe, understanding universe to mean the planets, stars, galaxies, etc. - a
rather vague expression, but still precise enough for this context, which needs no further
detail.
g.2. Immensely powerful. In particular, hes far more powerful than all other beings put together,
and is powerful enough to rule his creation effortlessly, and to defeat any other being effortlessly.
g.3. He is morally perfect.
g.4. He is vastly knowledgeable, and in particular, more knowledgeable than any other being.
Also, in particular, he knows all necessary truths, and knows everything that happened in the past
and is happening in the present in his creation.
g.4.1. Usual conceptions of God in present-day philosophy of religion often demand more
in terms of power and/or knowledge, but the previous requirements suffice. Also,
expressions like vastly knowledgeable are vague, but no greater precision is required in
this context.

g.4.2. In any case, under other conceptions of God, the moral case against Christianity
below can still be made and based on the same objections, just changing part of the
wording as needed. In particular, if a reader prefers a greatest conceivable being
understanding, the case below works as well, a least if the concept of the greatest
conceivable being is coherent, and also if one adds g.1., or at least g.1'.
To be clear, in the context of this moral case against Christianity, I will not claim that God exists, and I
will not claim that God does not exist. I will argue that Yahweh, if he exists, is not God (of course,
Yahweh does not exist, but I'm not arguing for that, either).
That aside, when quoting from a translation of the Bible, I will of course quote it accurately, and the
translation in question might use the word God differently, perhaps to mean Yahweh. I will address
the matter when commenting on the quotation if I reckon that clarification is needed.
h. By a moral agent I mean any agent who is morally righteous, or morally wicked, or morally
something in between, or a morally good agent in particular, a morally perfect agent would be
morally good -, or a morally bad agent, or an agent some of whose actions are immoral, or morally
praiseworthy, or morally obligatory.
For instance, at least nearly all adult humans are moral agents, whereas, say, sharks are not.
I will also assume that Yahweh is a moral agent. I realize that some people might deny that and claim,
say, that we can only properly say that hes morally good in some analogous sense. I will address the
matter later, but briefly, in that case I would say that if there is some analogy, then hes morally wicked
in that analogous sense, and the reasons I give in the essay below still apply.
Furthermore, many people ought to have disobeyed his commands barring a sufficient threat, and thats
not in any analogous sense. I will address the matters in greater detail later.
i. When I use terms the term guilty, unless otherwise specified, I mean it in a moral sense, not in a
legal sense.
j. When I talk about the actions of Yahweh, Moses, etc., Im not claiming that they in fact exist.
Im just assessing the morality of some of the actions of Yahweh, Moses, etc., as described in the Bible,
minus some moral claims or implications contained in the Bible, which I do not assume i.e., I
consider the biblical description minus some biblical moral claims. I will give some more details on
how I will approach the matter later, in section 1.

k. More generally, when I assume any description of events in any biblical passage, I do so only for the
sake of the argument, and in the context of this moral case against Christianity. I do not claim that any
such description is actually an accurate representation of any historical events.
l. Sometimes I may just say the ancient Israelites, even if Im talking only of the subset of them who
lived under Mosaic Law, or the relevant subset in context. Still, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I
will try to clarify at least whenever context is not sufficiently clear.
m. I only refer to different parts of this article as 'sections or subsections' - i.e., no sub-subsections,
etc., but I think links between the relevant parts of the document will prevent any ambiguity.
n. In order to be thorough, I will consider a wide range of objections to my points, whether actually
raised by Christian philosophers or by other Christians, or even potential objections I think some
Christians might plausibly raise. So, in particular, I dont claim that all of the objections Ill consider
have been or will be raised by any Christians let alone by Christian philosophers.
Still, I will consider all the usual objections to moral arguments against Christianity, at least those Im
familiar with, and several less usual ones but still used sometimes.
o. I dont claim that there is any novelty in the ideas on which I base this case. Moral arguments against
Christianity are common, and at least most (probably all) of the points I will raise have been raised by
other people as well.
1. Preliminary issues.
Before raising moral objections to Christianity, and preemptively, in this section I will address some
objections that are or might be raised against any moral case against Christianity.
Those readers who prefer to go directly to the moral objections to Christianity should skip this section,
and go to section two instead.
1.1. Moral realism, theism and counterpossible scenarios.
According to some philosophers, if theism is not true, then neither is moral realism, and hence they
would claim since moral realism is true, so is theism.
Alternatively, or additionally, they might say that if God did not exist, then objective moral values and
duties would not exist that would be William Lane Craigs claim.
Also, someone might connect such claims or beliefs with assessments about the morality of actions
described in the Bible, made by atheists in some sense of atheism.

For example, with regard to the massacre of Canaanites described in the Bible, William Lane Craig
takes this stance as part of his reply, and claims that a non-theist who objects to Christianity on such
grounds at most can be claiming that Christian theists who believe in the historical accuracy of that
narrative and that God is good are being inconsistent. He insists that even if that were a problem i.e.,
that inconsistency -, it would be no grounds for moral indignation on the part of the atheist. [3]
Of course, that is not true. Non-theists often do make moral claims, like everyone else. Perhaps, Craig
meant to say that non-theists can only rationally raise such objections?
In any case, Craig does not suggest that an argument against Christianity would fail because of that
reason only, but still, in a context like this, I would like to make the following points:
1. There is more than one usage of the expressions moral realism and God in philosophy, and
the expression objective moral values and duties is rather ambiguous in Craigs usage, but in
any event, there seems to be no good reason to suspect that if theism in any form, or under any
definition is not true, then it is not the case that:
a. Moral issues are matters of fact, not matters of opinion. For example, its not a matter of
opinion whether its immoral for humans to stone people to death for adultery. There is an
objective fact of the matter.
b. Some statements (or propositions, or judgments) assigning moral properties, like Pol
Pot was a morally bad person, or Bob has a moral obligation to pay his debts, etc., are
true.
Its beyond the scope of this essay to address a metaethical argument for theism let alone all of
them -, though I particular, I have argued elsewhere that Craigs argument fails for a good number
of reasons. [4]
2. Even leaving 1. aside, and even if Craigs or another metaethical argument for theism were
successful, an atheist could still be in some cases rightfully morally outraged by a claim that
some events were morally good, obligatory, praiseworthy, etc., even if she does not believe that
they ever happened, just as she could be rightfully morally outraged by the promotion of false
moral beliefs beliefs that are very far from the truth.
She would of course be mistaken in her atheism under this assumption about metaethical
arguments, but that would not automatically make any expression of moral outrage or indignation

on her part unwarranted. For example, if someone were to, say, kidnap her for ransom, or slander
her, she could be rightfully morally outraged.
Also, for example, if someone were to claim that atheists and/or people who have gay sex and do
not repent, etc., deserve to and will actually suffer infinite torment in hell for not believing that
God exists and/or for having same-sex sexual relations, then the person making such claims
would be immorally spreading false moral beliefs and attacking the moral character of many
people, by claiming that they deserve a horrible punishment that they do not deserve and they
do not deserve that if God exists, either; I would appeal to the readers sense of right and wrong
on this. Her mistake about the existence of God would not make her moral indignation for that
behavior out of place.
As just one more example, if Alice is an atheist, and Jack out of spite claims that she stole his
wallet but she did not -, she would be rightfully offended, outraged, etc. Her being an atheist
does not make her indignation out of place, regardless of whether shes right about atheism.
3. While atheists do not believe that Yahweh exists, many atheists believe and know that Mosaic
Law was actually applied its just that the commands did not come from Yahweh, of course.
Christians who defend Old Testament Law in their entirety are implying that, say, if a woman was
actually stoned to death for [presumably] having consensual sex with someone else before
being handed over to the man her father pledged her to, in accordance to Old Testament Law,
she actually got a punishment that she deserved, and those stoning her to death in accordance to
Mosaic Law did nothing morally wrong by stoning her to death. Events like that may well have
actually happened, and many atheists know that.
Spreading beliefs such as those warrants moral indignation on other people, including atheists,
who can be just as rightfully morally outraged as non-theists who are not atheists, or theists, even
if those atheists happen lets say to be mistaken about the existence of God, under any
common understanding of the word God.
Now, indignation on their part would be warranted even if the events in question did not
happened i.e., if no women was actually so stoned -, because those defending them would still
be spreading false moral beliefs. But just in case someone prefers to consider actual cases for
some reason, they may very well have happened.

4. So, given all of the above, and while its true that an inconsistency on the part of some theists
wouldnt be grounds independently on what the inconsistency is about or of anything else for
moral indignation on the part of some atheists, the promotion of beliefs like the ones under
consideration does provide good grounds for moral outraged on the part of many atheists.
Leaving aside the issue of moral indignation and of some Craigs contentions, someone might object to
the approach Im taking in this case against Christianity by arguing that moral realism and/or
objectivism entails that there cannot be a creator of all other beings who isnt morally perfect, and that
somehow thats a problem for my approach.
As before, I see no good reason to suspect that such claim about the purported implications of moral
realism/objectivism is true, at least if one understands that points a. and b. above are sufficient for
realism/objectivism to obtain - else, one may ask what realism/objectivism mean, and why one should
believe it obtains.
However, in any event, we neednt settle metaethical issues here, since one may assess the morality of
characters even in counterpossible scenarios in order to assess whether a religion is true, as long as the
counterpossible assumptions do not get in the way of a proper moral assessment (e.g., as long as one
doesnt assume things like that torturing people for fun is possibly morally good, or other such
impossibilities, and then decline to make moral assessments that contradict such impossibilities).
For example, lets say that religion X says that there is a personal creator of all other beings say, Bob
-, who creates other personal beings and tortures them for eternity for fun, and who is morally perfect.
Of course, actual religions wouldnt posit a creator who engages in that behavior too obvious -, but
the example is meant only to illustrate my approach to assessing Yahwehs behavior.
There are two ways (among others) in which one may reply:
i. A morally perfect being would not torture anyone for fun. So, religion X is not true.
ii. Lets assume that Bob is a moral agent who behaves as described in non-moral terms by
religion X (clearly, one would not accept all of the moral claims of religion X in order to assess
that). More precisely, lets say that Bob creates other personal beings and tortures them for
eternity for fun. Then, Bob is morally evil. In particular, Bob is not morally perfect. So, religion
X is not true.
It seems clear to me that the two approaches are essentially equivalent and proper, and if the approach

described in ii. involves a counterpossible hypothetical scenario, thats a just matter of style, not a
matter of substance. On either approach, a person is making a moral assessment of some of religion Xs
claims, and properly concluding that religion X is not true because it makes false moral claims,
regardless of how they choose to word the objection.
1.2. The Bible and the sources of moral knowledge.
Someone might suggest that, without the Bible[5], we have no reliable source of moral knowledge, and
so allegedly we cannot properly assess the morality of the actions of Yahweh, as described in the Bible.
This is not an objection I would expect philosophers to raise, but Ive seen some Christians making
claims like this, so lets point out that:
a. Most people in most civilizations did not have the Bible.
If they did not have any reliable source of moral knowledge, how could the people in those civilizations
be morally blamed for their actions?
How was it their moral fault if some of them, say, killed or raped others for fun, if they did not have
any reliable means of telling right from wrong?
Moreover, how can non-theists from todays predominantly non-Christian countries (e.g., China, Japan,
Vietnam) be properly blamed for their actions?
Could Muslims who have not been exposed to Christianity be properly blamed for following the
teachings of Islam including those cases in which Islam and Christianity do not agree?
If those people cant be properly blamed for their actions, then they deserve no punishment at all and
surely, no afterlife punishment, either. But that contradicts most versions of Christianity.
In any case, its preposterous that they deserve no blame for any of their actions, no matter what those
actions are. But that means they do have at least reliable means of telling right from wrong reliable
doesnt mean infallible, of course, but it has to usually work, if the person decides to consider the
matters carefully.
b. In fact, most people today do not use the Bible as a source of moral beliefs, since most people today
arent Christians.
If they have no reliable source of moral knowledge without the Bible, why should they adopt
Christianity?
If there is no reliable source of moral knowledge without the Bible, then it seems they have no reliable

way of assessing whether the Bible rather than, say, the Quran is a reliable source of moral
knowledge. How would that be their fault?
c. In fact, if there is no reliable source of moral knowledge without the Bible, it seems the Bible wont
provide any such source, either. For, how would anyone know that the Bible is reliable when it makes
moral claims?
Even if there was good evidence that it was inspired by a powerful being, that would not give them any
reasons to believe that it was inspired by a morally good being, let alone a morally perfect one, or a
trustworthy one.
And they cant reliably test whether the Bible contains moral truths unless they have another means
that can be used to make moral assessments, at least in a generally reliable way. So, this objection
would be untenable.
1.3. Sovereignty.
Another objection might be that the creator is sovereign, and so allegedly he has no moral obligations.
Thus, he wouldnt be acting immorally if he acted in some way described in the Bible whatever that
way is.
That seems clearly false:
If there is a personal creator in particular, a moral agent who, say, tortures everyone else for eternity
just for fun, one could clearly say that such creator is acting immorally. Someone might raise a
metaethical objection, but they do not succeed, and if they did one can always properly reword a moral
objection to a religion around the metaethical issue Ive already addressed such metaethical issues
before.
Of course, Yahweh does not torture everyone for eternity for fun on the biblical account, but thats just
an example. The point is that one may assess the morality of his behavior in a hypothetical scenario.
Granted, Christian readers will no doubt object to my assessments of the morality of many of Yahwehs
actions, but that would require actually assessing the actions, not dismissing the whole moral case
against Christianity merely on the basis of sovereignty.
1.4. Who are we to judge God?
Someone might raise the objection that were morally flawed, so we shouldnt judge God.
Actually, if we know that an entity is God, we can properly judge his actions, by assessing that theyre

never immoral, since God is morally perfect.

However, that aside, Im not making any claims about Gods actions, but making moral assessments of
the actions of Yahweh, as depicted (in non-moral) terms by the Bible.
To be clear, when I say in non-moral terms, I mean Im assuming the scenario in which there is a
creator who gives the command Yahweh gives, creates what Yahweh creates, etc., and then assessing
the morality of his actions in that scenario. Ive already explained the approach earlier.
Still, someone might be worried that this approach isnt adequate in some cases. For example, what if
the Bible says that Yahweh punishes some evil people, but does not explain or gives any other clues as
to why those people are allegedly evil, either implicitly or explicitly?
In that case, it would not seem proper to assess that Yahwehs targets were not evil, so I wouldnt assess
that. The matter has to be decided on a case by case basis, but in case of doubt, I simply wont use that
particular example as an objection to the moral character of Yahweh.
For instance, if there is no reason explicit or implicit in the text that allows one to assess that the people
accused of being evil arent so, I will not dispute the claim that theyre morally evil.
Also, for example:
a. If a text or interpretation says or implies that Jack deserved to die, and says nothing more about
Jack, then I will not dispute that. But if a text or interpretation says that person Jack deserved to
die and Jack was a human infant, then I may well dispute it as a way or challenging the claims or
implications in that text or interpretation. In particular, I might point out that human infants are
not the kind of entity that can deserve to die. Similarly, if the text or interpretation gives some
other reason to dispute that Jack deserved to die, I might dispute the claim based on that.
b. If a text or interpretation says or implies that Jack deserves to die for, say, an ordinary case of
shoplifting, then I may well dispute it, since people do not deserve to die for that. The same goes
for, say, adultery.
c. If the text or interpretation says or implies that Jack deserved to die and John killed Jack as a
punishment, I might content that Johns actions were immoral, if given the context, one can tell
that John was not in a position to properly assess that Jack deserved to die.
But as usual, the matter would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, which I will do from
section 2 on.

1.5. Assessing the morality of hypothetical characters and/or their actions.

While this should go without saying, Ive seen some odd objections, so Id like to point out that we can
properly make moral assessments about people in hypothetical scenarios, without being committed to
the existence of the people in question.
For instance, we can say that something like The fact that Lex Luthor did such-and-such thing shows
that hes not morally good, without being committed to the existence of Lex Luthor.
Rather, were just taking the perspective of the story, instead of stating something like If Lex Luthor
existed and had acted in such-and-such manner, then that would show that he wouldnt be morally
good, which would be cumbersome.
This is not only common when talking about TV shows, movies, comic books, novels, etc., but also in
hypothetical scenarios raised in philosophical discussions.
I will take a similar approach with respect to the actions of Yahweh and/or those following his
commands in many cases, but Im in no way suggesting that he exists. Im not assuming that he does
not exist, either well, its clear to me that Yahweh does not exist, but that assumption is not required
for this moral case to work.
Incidentally, if a metaethical argument for the existence of God succeeded, then a moral argument
against Yahweh would establish that either Yahweh does not exist, or hes a creature, not God since
hes not morally perfect, or even morally good. Still, I see no good reason to suspect that such a
metaethical argument succeeds.
1.6. Assessing whether a religion is true on moral grounds.
As particular cases of assessing the morality of hypothetical characters and/or their actions, we can
sometimes (often) properly use our sense of right and wrong to assess some claims made by a religion
or more generally an ideology, without having to assess the matter of existence of the beings it posits,
let alone being committed to their existence.
For example, if someone claimed, say, that the entities worshiped by the Aztecs were all morally good,
we may properly use our moral sense to ascertain that such claim is not true.
That does not mean that we always can properly do that, of course. For instance, if religion Z claims
that some entity E exists, claims that E is morally good and justly killed a human being, but Z gives no
further information (explicitly or implicitly) about E, the situation, etc., then we wouldnt be able to

assess whether religion Z is true by making a moral assessment of E or her actions, though we would
still be able to use our moral sense to tell that we have insufficient information to make such an
assessment.
So, in brief, what I do in this article is nothing unusual, self-defeating, absurd, or anything like that, but
merely assessing whether a certain religion or set of religions namely, Christianity is true, by means
of assessing a number of Christian moral claims or implications, including claims or implications about
the morality of Yahweh and/or some of his actions.
An alternative way to make a moral case against Christianity would be to say that if there existed an
entity who engaged in the actions that, according to the Bible, Yahweh engages in, then such entity
would not be morally good, let alone morally perfect, or also alternatively, that a morally perfect
creator wouldnt behave like that, etc.
However, those alternatives would be quite cumbersome, so merely as a matter of style, I prefer to say
that Yahweh engaged such-and-such behavior, so hes not morally good, etc.
That aside, of course its true that we have other means of assessing whether a religion is true, and my
position is that many people have shown that Christianity is not true, in a variety of ways,
independently of any moral arguments. But that does not make the use of a moral argument improper.
Also, granted, the conclusions that Yahweh is not morally good, or that some ancient Israelites should
not have obeyed his actions, etc., do not entail that he does not exist. That is another matter though
my position is that he does not exist, thats beyond the scope of this article.
Finally, let me point out that in case someone objects to any of my previous points by claiming that
Christianity is not a religion and/or that religion is too vague a term for this context, or a similar
objection, the objection would not work, since its still proper to assess the veracity of the moral claims
a person is making, regardless of whether theyre part of a set of religious beliefs, etc., or of what
religion means.
1.7. Our sense of right and wrong and Christianity.
As I explained in previous subsections, we can use our sense of right and wrong to assess whether
Christianity is true, by assessing the morality of some of the actions of Yahweh, as well as the actions
of those following his commands.
However, someone might claim that even if my sense of right and wrong tells me that Yahweh is not

morally good let alone morally perfect their sense of right and wrong tells them otherwise and the
same for those following his commands.
While that might happen, we have to assess the matter carefully before concluding it does in a
particular case.
For instance, there are plenty of examples in which some Christians seem to actually see moral
problems in some of the actions of Yahweh or those following his commands, but they come up with
new interpretations instead of concluding that Christianity is false.
For example, they might contend that some people are in Hell by their own free choice[6], or that some
of the events described in the Bible actually did not happen, and that some passages were not inspired,
etc.
Still, if some Christians sense of right and wrong actually yields a very different verdict from mine
when assessing the morality of the actions of Yahweh or his followers that I will consider below, and in
particular they find no fault in his actions even after careful reflection on them, then clearly they wont
find the case Im making persuasive at all. All I would ask from readers is to try to assess the actions in
question carefully, and make their own assessments of the morality of the behaviors in question, by
means of their own moral sense.
1.8. The Fall.
Another objection a Christian might raise against this moral case goes as follows: As a result of the
Fall, we shouldnt trust our sense of right and wrong to make negative assessments about the moral
character of Yahweh, or to conclude that he made false moral assessments.
a. This objection seems to assume Christianity including its moral claims.
But were assessing whether Christianity is true. So, someone accepting this objection would be
essentially refusing to use her moral sense as a means to assess whether Christianity is true for every
negative assessment would be rejected beforehand -, even if she claims that Yahweh is morally good.
Once again, there is no good reason to refuse to use ones moral sense in this particular case, given that
one can use it in general, to assess religious claims.
b. Point a. suffices, but additionally, if we shouldnt even trust our moral sense even when it yields
crystal clear assessments[7], like, say, that oxen arent morally guilty of anything, or that a woman in
ancient Israel who became a prostitute and was the daughter of a priest, did not deserve to be burned to

death for that, then that would cast such serious doubts on our moral sense that it would be hard to see
how any moral assessment would be justified, given that were rejecting even crystal clear ones on the
basis of the alleged Fall. The Bible would not help, of course, since we would not be able to assess that
Yahweh is morally good, either, or that the Bible is a guide to moral truth.
1.9. The Old Testament and Christianity.
Different versions of Christianity have different views about the relation between Christianity and the
Old Testament, on issues ranging from whether some stories should be interpreted literally, to even
whether the Old Testament is part of Christian scripture at all, or whether some passages are.
I will consider such matters later when assessing specific cases, but for now, I will just point out that
versions of Christianity comprising most adherents seem to agree that even though many or all of the
laws of the Old Testament do not apply to Christians, nevertheless they were laws given by Yahweh
who they claim is God to the ancient Israelites or more precisely to some of them, since for
instance there were ancient Israelites before Moses.
Moreover, attempts to separate Jesus from the Old Testament by rejecting the inspiration or accuracy of
the latter run into the problem that the New Testament makes references to the Old Testament, even
showing Jesuss approval of a number of actions portrayed and the laws contained in the Old
Testament, and so the person rejecting much of the Old Testament would be committed to rejecting
much of the New Testament as well, as I will argue later.
1.10. Hell and Christianity.
Different versions of Christianity have different views of Hell.
I will address different variants later, but for now, I will point out that versions of Christianity
comprising most adherents hold that there is indeed endless suffering even if they do not agree on its
nature, who or what causes it, etc.
However, this moral case does not hinge on whether the proper interpretation of the Bible or some
parts of it is that there is infinite Hell. In fact, the rest of the essay is sufficient to establish, on moral
grounds, that Christianity is false, even leaving aside all of the arguments involving Hell.
1.11. Not a moral agent?
Someone might claim or at least suggest that Yahweh is not a moral agent, and that if people say hes
morally good, theyre usually or always speaking in an analogous sense, and/or that its only proper to

say that in an analogous sense. Then, they might object to my assessment that Yahweh behaved
immorally in many cases for instance by saying that hes not the kind of entity whose actions may
be properly morally assessed.
However, the claim of an analogous sense would have to be argued for. In my experience talking to
Christians and other believers in the existence of Yahweh, that is clearly not the case. Most of them
clearly seem to believe that hes morally perfect, and thus morally good, in no analogous sense i.e.,
theyre using moral terms in the ordinary sense, not in some analogous sense, whatever that might be.
Moreover, that seems to have been Jesuss stance as well, according to the Gospels of Mark and
Matthew, as the following passages show:
OEB[1]
Mark 10:
17 As Jesus was resuming his journey, a man came running up to him, and threw
himself on his knees before him. Good teacher, he asked, what must I do to gain
eternal life?18 Why do you call me good? answered Jesus. No one is good but
God.
Matthew 19:
16 A man came up to Jesus, and said: Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain
eternal life?
17 Why ask me about goodness? answered Jesus. There is but One who is good.
If you want to enter the life, keep the commandments.
GWEB:
Mark 10:
10:17 As he was going out into the way, one ran to him, knelt before him, and asked
him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 10:18 Jesus said
to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one--God.
Matthew 19:
19:16 Behold, one came to him and said, "Good teacher, what good thing shall I do,
that I may have eternal life?" 19:17 He said to him, "Why do you call me good? No
one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the

commandments."
So, in Mark 10, a man says that Jesus is good. Granted, the man does not use the English word good,
but he uses the word with the same meaning, so the fact that he wasnt speaking in English is not
important.
Now, in context, its clear that the man was saying that Jesus was morally good, and he clearly was not
speaking in any analogous sense, since he was talking about Jesus, and the man did not believe that
Jesus was Yahweh, or anything other than a human teacher, with knowledge about how to get eternal
life.
Yet, Jesus responded saying that Yahweh was good, without any kind of suggestion of a shift in the
meaning of the words in the middle of the conversation. Similar considerations apply to Mark 19:1617.
Granted, someone might reject all of that and insist on the claim about an analogous sense. However,
he would have to explain the evidence above, and furthermore, he would have to give some argument
in support of his claim. Moreover, the person making the claim should explain, at least roughly, in
which sense there would be an analogy.
But in any event, even that would not be a successful objection to the present moral case, since:
a. If Jesus and others were using morally good in some analogous sense, they were making a
positive evaluation of Yahwehs character akin to a positive moral evaluation. But then, it seems
similarly we may use our sense of right and wrong and conclude that Yahweh is morally wicked,
even if in some analogous sense.
Perhaps, someone might still object and say that Yahwehs mind is so different from ours that not
even in any analogous sense one is entitled so assessing whether hes morally good or bad.
However:
a.1. That would contradict Jesuss words, according to Matthew 19:17 and in Mark 10:18.
In those cases Jesus was saying that Yahweh was morally good, and was not using the
words in an analogous sense. But even assuming that Jesus was using the words in an
analogous sense, at least there would be an analogous sense in which he was making a
positive moral evaluation, or rather a positive akin-to-moral evaluation.
a.2. If Yahwehs mind is so alien that one cant properly make any moral evaluations about

his character, or even anything akin to moral evaluations, then all of the usual claims about
Yahwehs alleged moral character made by Christians would be false.
Moreover, one may still properly assess, based on the biblical stories, that Yahweh is a
destructive force that horribly punishes people while falsely accusing them of behaving
immorally and deserving those punishments, inflicts horrendous pain and generally
suffering on children, and so on.
b. Christianity is not only committed to the belief that Yahweh is morally good, but also
committed to the belief that all humans have a moral obligation to obey Yahwehs commands,
and its apparent even to those who might raise the analogous sense objection in the cases in
which one is talking about Yahweh, that there is no analogous sense in the case of humans in a
position to choose whether to obey Yahwehs commands. The claim is that those humans have or
had a moral obligation to obey, not an akin-to-moral-obligation to obey.
However, we may properly assess based on the biblical stories that, in many cases, people did not
have a moral obligation to obey Yahwehs commands. In fact, often they had a moral obligation
not to do obey unless there were a sufficiently credible and justificatory threat from Yahweh or
something like that, but in that case, at the very least they ought not to have obeyed willingly, or
approvingly.
Of course, Christians will object to my claims in the paragraph immediately above this one.
However, that is a disagreement about moral assessments, not about assessments in some sense
analogous to morality whatever that might mean, if it happened to make sense -, and so the
matter is not related to this particular objection.
In light of the above, this objection does not succeed, so I will continue to make evaluations of
Yahwehs actions, as described in the biblical stories.
Of course, Christians will object to my claims in the paragraph immediately above this one. However,
that is a disagreement about moral assessments, not about assessments in some sense analogous to
morality whatever that might mean, if it happened to make sense -, and so the matter is not related to
this particular objection.
1.12. Context.
In my experience, a more or less common objection to moral arguments against Christianity contends

that biblical quotes are taken out of context, and that we should also consider those cases in which
Yahweh does something thats clearly good.
According to this objection, if we were to take that into consideration, our conclusion would be that
Yahweh is morally good, and that if some of his actions appear not to be so, its because we dont have
enough knowledge about the situation to make a better assessment.
However, with a similar criterion, someone might say that even if some of his actions appear to be
morally good, thats only because we dont have enough information about the situation to conclude
that theyre not.
It seems to me that both claims would not be warranted: it seems we do have enough information to
make a moral assessment of the actions of entities in hypothetical scenarios, in many cases, and the
same applies to Yahweh in particular. This point should be clearer when I consider the specific
scenarios.
In particular, if an action appears to be morally wrong, and all the possible reasons that we can come up
with fail to provide a justification for said action, and further, there appear to be obviously better
alternatives less immoral, or even not bad -, then it seems clear that were justified in assessing that
such action would be morally wrong.
In addition to that, in some cases, we even know Yahwehs motivation as stated in the Bible to punish
people he claims deserve such punishment, for instance -, and so a claim that he acted for mysterious
reasons would be untenable. The same goes, of course, for morally good actions.
However, I dont think that its in any way inappropriate not to also quote actions that appear to be
morally good, or even that are so. On that note, objecting that Im only focusing on the bad would be
out of place: it would be like saying that if I said that a dictator who tortured people to death just for
peacefully expressing disagreement with some of his policies acted very immorally and is not a good
person because of that, I would be taking things out of context because the dictator in question, say,
loved his children, sometimes or often behaved in a morally good way towards them, etc.,. and I did
not point that out.
Maybe the dictator did love his children, but that does not change the fact that he acted very immorally
when he tortured people to death just for peacefully expressing disagreement with some of his policies.
Given how immoral such actions are, then the fact would be that the dictator in question is not a

morally good person, even if some of his actions were morally good.
Similarly, some Taliban members, Hezbollah members, etc., do morally good actions on several
occasions, but they also engage in atrocities, and its proper to conclude that theyre bad people based
on that not that theyre maximally evil, of course, but then, Im not arguing that Yahweh is maximally
evil, either.
2. Some legal dispositions in the Old Testament.
In this section, I will assess many of the dispositions in the law contained in the Old Testament.
2.1. Local matters.
In this subsection, I will assess commands involving domestic criminal laws, in particular commands
not involving warfare against other tribes.
2.1.1. Sex outside marriage, adultery and rape.
GWEB:
Deuteronomy 22
22:23 If there be a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a husband,
and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 then you shall bring them both
out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones; the lady,
because she didn't cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his
neighbor's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you. 22:25 But if the
man find the lady who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man force her,
and lie with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die: 22:26 but to the lady
you shall do nothing; there is in the lady no sin worthy of death: for as when a man
rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter; 22:27 for he found her
in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried, and there was none to save her.
22:28 If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay
hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22:29 then the man who lay with her
shall give to the lady's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because
he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
So, lets assess some of the dispositions contained in Old Testament Law:
a. If a man has sex with a woman pledged to be married to a husband, and theyre in a city and she

does not cry, they are both stoned to death. Moreover, it is implied that in that case, in particular she
committed an immoral action that merits that punishment.
In other words, its implied that she deserves the death penalty, and furthermore, that she deserves the
suffering of being stoned before dying.
In context, its apparent that there is an assumption that because she did not cry, she consented to
having sex with the man in question. However, it is also apparent that even if she did not cry, she may
well not have consented to having sex with him. Maybe the man raped her and (for instance) had a
knife on her throat, she was terrified, etc. There are a number of possibilities. Also, incidentally, even
if, in practice, legally proving that she had not cried was difficult, the fact remains that if that was
legally proven, there was nowhere near evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she had consented to
having sex with him.
It is true that the biblical passage says forces her - or makes similar distinctions in other translations
in the case in which he finds her in the field, and shes not punished in that case, while the text does not
mention force in the case in which theyre in the city and she does not cry. However, it seems that, in
context, that is plausibly because the fact that she does not cry is considered conclusive evidence of
consent. But if she didnt cry and didnt consent, either, she was a victim of rape, and was apparently
then stoned to death, following the biblical command.
Still, lets grant that this particular command only applies to cases of consensual sex.
Even if so, then what the man and the woman who have consensual sex with each other are guilty of
if anything depends on the case:
a.1. If she was pledged to another man by her father, without her consent, and she decided to
have sex with someone else instead, she was not guilty of anything for having sex with him.
While legally she was guilty of a crime punishable by death by stoning, morally, she was not
morally guilty. Rather, the law was very unjust.
As for the man who had consensual sex with her, in that case he wasnt guilty for having sex with
her, either. At most, each of them may have been guilty of things like, say, placing the other
person in danger for having sex with that person in a social environment in which there is an
appalling law that punishes consensual sex with death by stoning, under those circumstances. But
they did not deserve to be stoned to death for that, obviously. What was evil was the law in

question.
a.2. If she freely consented to marrying a man, and then cheated on him with another man, then
usually that would have been immoral, even though there are exceptions. But lets say that this
was not an exception. Then, she behaved immorally. As for the man who had sex with her, that
depends on the case. But in any event, neither her nor her lover deserved to be stoned to death for
their behavior. Maybe she deserved to have the marriage canceled and get no money in
compensation for the cancellation, and to be told that she had behaved immorally, but thats about
it. Even very short term imprisonment [if available], or flogging, would have been very immoral,
and stoning her to death was just monstrous.
Yet, in all those cases and others, the Bible demands that she and her lover be stoned to death for their
behavior, and implies that they do deserve it, since:
a. i. The Bible imposes death by stoning as the punishment, and in context, the biblical text
implies that all of the punishments it imposes are deserved,
a. ii. Specifically, the Bible points out that the woman who is found outside the city and forced
does not commit any action that deserves the death penalty. The contrast is clear, and so its
implicit that the woman who is in the city and does not cry deserves the death penalty, according
to Yahweh. That alone wouldnt on its own entail that according to Yahweh she deserves the
death penalty by means of stoning there are different means of execution, after all -, but given
context, its clear that death by stoning is implicitly held to be just.
So, Yahweh here makes grossly false moral implications, and gives commands that are profoundly
unjust, and which the ancient Israelites who were in a position to decide whether to follow them should
have disobeyed, given that there was no other justification available.
On that note, and for example, if there had been a conclusively credible threat by Yahweh that he would
torture the lovers for eternity unless other people stoned them to death, that would plausibly justify
stoning them to death in order to save them from that fate at the hands of that monster, but of course it
would not justify willingly stoning them to death, or believing that they deserved to be stoned to death,
or that Yahweh was not a moral monster let alone believing that he is morally good, and let alone
morally perfect.
In the biblical context, however, there was no justification for following those morally abhorrent

commands, nor for believing Yahwehs false moral implications that they deserved to be stoned to
death.
b. If a man finds a woman outside the city and rapes her, he is to be stoned to death, and she is not
punished.
In those times, they did not have resources for a prison system that would be able to deal with such
rapists, and a corporal punishment for such an act of rape would plausibly have been justified.
However, even then, stoning him to death would have been excessive. Even if the death penalty was
justified which is debatable, but lets say that it was -, stoning him to death would have been too
much. There are other means of execution that are less brutal.
However, there is a more serious moral problem with this disposition. So, lets say for the sake of the
argument that he deserved to be stoned to death for the act of rape he committed. The problem here is
that he wasnt being punished for rape. He was being punished for having sex with a woman pledged
to another man, regardless of whether she consented.
That is clearly shown by the facts that:
b. i. The punishment for him namely, to be stoned to death is the same as the punishment for
consensual sex with a woman pledged to another man, in the case considered in a., and which is
addressed in the same biblical context. In that other case, her unjustly presumed, but still
presumed consent does not alter the punishment for him, which is also to be stoned to death.
b. ii. In case of rape of a virgin woman who is not pledged to another man, Deuteronomy does
not impose the punishment of being stoned to death for the rapist. In fact, if Deuteronomy 22:28
does not include cases of rape, then no punishment is imposed for the rapist in that case. And if
Deuteronomy 22:28 includes cases of rape, then the rapist only has to pay a sum of money to the
victims father, and then marry his victim.
Given the above, its clear that stoning to death is a punishment imposed on a man for sexual
penetration of a woman whose father had pledged her to another man, regardless of whether she
consented to the sexual penetration in question or, for that matter, to being pledged to that other man.
Its also a punishment imposed on a woman whose father pledged her to a man, for having consensual
sex with a different man before shes handed over to the man her father pledged her to, regardless of
whether she consented to being pledged, and under the unreasonable assumption that if she did not

cry, then she consented to sex.

c. Most of the ancient Israelites had not witnessed any of Yahwehs displays of power.
They were just told that a morally good creator had commanded what those biblical passages
command, and that the people being punished deserved it, etc. But its clear that those ancient Israelites
should not have believed such claims, and should not have followed the commands in question. One of
the reasons why they should not have believed such claims is that they should have realized that many
of the legal dispositions were deeply unjust, making them not the kind of legal dispositions a morally
good ruler with such great power would pass.
For an analogy to one of the legal dispositions say, the consensual sex case, in case shes pledged
and actually consented to that -, lets say Ahmed lives in the nineteenth century somewhere in the
Middle East. Hes never been in contact with any religion other than the local version of Islam, and hes
been told that Sharia Law comes from a morally good creator and imposes only just punishments. Now,
if hes told that he should follow that law and stone a married woman to death for adultery (for
instance), he should not believe that a morally good creator gave those orders, he should not believe
that she deserves to be stoned to death for adultery, and he should not stone her to death, even if she
actually got married consensually, rather than being forced into that marriage.
But the situation of those ancient Israelites, with respect to the case involving consensual sex and
consensual marriage, was similar granting even that her consent to the marriage was well established
-; those ancient Israelites too were told that a morally good creator imposed that punishment as well as
a large number of other punishments. They too were told that those punishments were all just, even
though many of them were extremely unjust. And they too should have rejected the commands.
d. Even if some of the ancient Israelites witnessed some of Yahwehs displays of power (Im assuming
he exists merely for the sake of the argument, though of course I do not believe he does), they should
not have believed that he was morally good just because of such displays, since power does not indicate
moral goodness. In fact, based on the appalling commands he was giving, and also given that he
claimed or implied that some people deserved horrific punishments when they did not, etc., they ought
to have realized that Yahweh was not a morally good being let alone a morally perfect one.
Objection 2.1.1.1: Youre not interpreting the passages properly. If a victim of rape didnt cry but
other pieces of evidence showed that she was raped, she wasnt punished.

Reply:
1. That does not seem to be based on the text. It seems that whoever makes such a claim should provide
evidence. But even if other probatory elements were allowed, and even if that could have resulted in
her being spared, it seems clear that in absence of other evidence, her lack of crying was considered
sufficient evidence of consent by the author of biblical law. That is clearly a wrong way of assessing
evidence, institutionalized in Old Testament Law, established by Yahweh.
2. Even if one grants for the sake of the argument that what this objection contends is true, and further
that the punishment of being stoned to death was only applied to a woman who consented to having sex
with a man other than the man they were pledged to. I actually analyzed this case above, and as
explained, the law was still profoundly unjust, those in a position to make a decision should still have
rejected the commands, and Yahweh should not have given those commands in the first place.
Objection 2.1.1.2: Those who committed adultery in ancient Israelite society deserved to be
stoned to death for that behavior, at least when it comes to the specific types of adultery punished
by death by stoning in the Bible. Youre not part of that society, and you dont have the amount
of information that they had to make moral assessments.
Reply:
1. No, those who committed adultery did not deserve to be stoned to death for adultery, in the cases
described in the Bible or in others. Thats apparent to a human being who is assessing the matter
rationally.
Its true that some, perhaps even most of those ancient Israelites assessed otherwise. I do not know the
percentages. But for that matter, even today there are people who believe that in their societies its
morally just to stone people to death for adultery, and that those people deserve to be stoned to death
for that. In some social groups, perhaps even most people do believe those things.
We are not part of those societies, but that does not mean that we are not in a position to realize that
such a punishment is very unjust, and that those who commit adultery do not deserve to be stoned to
death for that. On the contrary, we can properly tell that the punishment in question is unjust;
apparently, those people are failing to make proper assessments due to some bias, in many cases
plausibly resulting from their religious beliefs. But whatever the reason for their error, we can tell that
theyre in error. Similarly, we can properly make that assessment in the case of that ancient Israelite

society.
This objection basically amounts to ignoring ones sense of right and wrong in the particular case of
ancient Israelite society. Its not a proper way of assessing the matter.
2. In some cases, the people being punished were not even guilty of adultery in a moral sense, even if
legally their actions were adultery. That would be the case of a woman and a man having consensual
sex in a situation in which the womans father had pledged her to another man, against her wishes.
The morally guilty parties in that situation were neither the woman nor her lover, but the womans
father and the man she was pledged to. While even the guilty parties didnt deserve to be stoned to
death that would have been excessive -, they did deserve severe punishment but didnt receive any,
whereas those who morally committed no adultery, got stoned to death. This law is morally appalling
of course, it would still have been morally appalling if the punishment had been applied only to cases
in which the marriage wasnt forced.
Objection 2.1.1.3: Those who committed [those kinds of] adultery in ancient Israelite society
deserved to be stoned to death not for adultery, but for disobeying a morally perfect creator.
Reply:
1. Thats not what the Bible says.
The biblical passages make it clear that the punishment is for sex when a woman is pledged to another
man, rather than a punishment for disobedience to Yahweh.
In fact, there are many other punishments imposed in the Old Testament, and many of them do not
involve stoning people to death, or the death penalty, even if those people would be disobeying
Yahwehs commands as well.
In particular, in this context, Deuteronomy 22:28 imposes a much more lenient punishment, even if the
behavior that is punished is also an instance of disobeying Yahweh.
2. Yahweh is not a morally perfect creator, and in the context of assessing his moral character, it would
be improper to assume that hes morally perfect. In fact, the description of his behavior in the Bible
shows that, while some of his behaviors are good, many are so evil that overall, the right conclusion is
that hes a moral monster, even if not maximally morally evil.
3. Lets consider an analogy. Lets say that religion X maintains that a morally perfect creator with the
power to rule the universe at will commands that if a woman commits shoplifting, she shall be put in a

tank full of water and then boiled, increasing the temperature at the right speed to guarantee a
tremendous amount of pain for five minutes at least. Moreover, the religion in question contends that a
woman who commits shoplifting deserves that punishment, either for shoplifting, or for disobedience
to a morally perfect creator, or for both.
Then, it is clear that such a religion would be false, and we may properly make this assessment based
on moral considerations. A woman who commits shoplifting does not deserve that, for any of the
behaviors in question.
While the punishment is different in the biblical cases under analysis, and so is the behavior for which
people are punished, the point of this example and the sense on which the cases are relevantly
analogous is that a claim that the immensely powerful entity issuing the command is a morally
perfect creator is not a successful reply to this kind of moral objection to a religion.
4. In fact, and given that the punishment also applied to cases of consensual sex between a man and a
woman in which the womans father had pledged her to another man against her will, we may as well
substitute, say, eating a banana, or playing chess for shoplifting in point 3. above.
5. Moreover, again given that the punishment also applied to cases of consensual sex between a man
and a woman in which the womans father had pledged her to another man against her will, we may
as well substitute having consensual sex with a man other than the man legally allowed to rape her for
shoplifting in point 3. above.
6. Disobedience to a morally perfect creator would not, on its own or in addition to adultery, merit
being stoned to death.
Objection 2.1.1.4: Those who committed adultery in ancient Israelite society deserved to be
stoned to death for disobeying a morally perfect creator in a specific case in which such creator
establishes that punishment for disobedience. If Yahweh had established a different punishment,
then they would have deserved that different punishment.
Reply:
1. Thats not what the Bible says. The biblical passages make it clear that the punishment is for adultery
when a woman is pledged to another man, rather than a punishment for disobedience to Yahweh.
2. Yahweh is not a morally perfect creator, and in the context of assessing his moral character, based on
the information we have about him and his behavior, it would be improper to assume that hes morally

perfect. In fact, the description of his behavior in the Bible shows that, while some of his behaviors are
good, many are so evil that overall, the right conclusion is that hes a moral monster.
3. Lets consider an analogy. Lets say that religion X maintains that a morally perfect creator with the
power to rule the universe at will commands that if a woman commits shoplifting, she shall be put in a
tank full of water and then boiled, increasing the temperature at a right speed to guarantee a tremendous
amount of pain for five minutes at least. Moreover, the religion in question contends that a woman who
commits shoplifting deserves that punishment for disobeying a morally perfect creator if such creator
decided that the punishment would be as described.
Then based on that, we can properly make a moral assessment and conclude that religion X is not true.
While the punishment is different in the biblical cases under analysis, and so is the behavior for which
people are punished, the point of this example and the sense on which the cases are relevantly
analogous is that a claim that the enormously powerful entity issuing the command is a morally
perfect creator is not a successful reply to this kind of moral objection to a religion.
4. In fact, and given that the punishment applied in cases of consensual sex between a man and a
woman in which the womans father had pledged her to another man, we may as well substitute, say,
eating a banana, or playing chess for shoplifting in point 3. above.
5. Moreover, again given that the punishment also applied to cases of consensual sex between a man
and a woman in which the womans father had pledged her to another man against her will, we may
as well substitute having consensual sex with a man other than the man legally allowed to rape her for
shoplifting in point 3. above.
6. Disobedience to a morally perfect creator would not, on its own or in addition to adultery, merit
being stoned to death. And so a morally perfect creator would not imply that people who disobey him
deserve that not that this is the case under consideration, since the punishment was clearly for the sex,
not for disobedience in cases in which thats the specified punishment.
Objection 2.1.1.5: Even if it would have been immoral for some or any of the ancient Israelites to
follow any or even all of the commands in question, it does not follow that it was immoral for
Yahweh to give them.
Reply:
1. Just that we may properly assess, based on the description of the situation, that they should not have

obeyed, we may properly assess that Yahweh shouldnt have given those very unjust commands in the
first place.
Lets look at the situation: an immensely powerful being who can easily rule the universe at will is
giving to some of the ancient Israelites commands that it would be very immoral for them to follow.
Its apparent that he has no justification. Its not as if someone forced him to give those commands,
under threat of something worse, or that somehow he had another justification for issuing commands
that should have been rejected for the people he issued those commands to.
2. Moreover, the biblical claim or implication is that all the people being punished deserved to be
stoned to death, which clearly is false. Yahwehs motivation seems to have been punitive, unless he was
being deceptive. But there would have been no justification for that, either, considering the context. In
other words, if he deceitfully implied that the punishments were merited, then his behavior is still
appalling.
3. Additionally, this kind of behavior is in line with an assortment of other behaviors depicted in the
Old Testament, and which show that he is a moral monster. It would not be a proper way of assessing
the evidence to dismiss the evidence and suggest that Yahweh had some mysterious justification,
especially given that the motivation is stated.
4. The fact that those ancient Israelites should not have followed Yahwehs commands would on its
own constitute a serious objection to versions of Christianity that hold that those commands were
indeed from Yahweh.
Objection 2.1.1.6: Even if he made false moral claims of implications, like implying that those
people deserved to be stoned to death when they did not, etc., that does not mean that Yahweh
had no justification for lying.
Reply:
For that matter, no matter how atrocious a behavior by a powerful being appears to be, someone might
claim that there were mysterious reasons were not privy to. But that would not be a proper way of
assessing the evidence, and considering context, Yahwehs behavior is clearly appalling, and there is no
justification.
Objection 2.1.1.7: Those passages do not come from Yahweh. Moses made them up.
Reply:

1. That would still show that Moses was a moral monster, and that alone would be a decisive objection
to most forms of Christianity.
2. In the context of the Bible, the view that Moses made up those commands and didnt have Yahwehs
backing is untenable. Purely for example, Yahweh punishes Moses later for a much less extensive act
of disobedience, and does not allow him to enter the land Yahweh took from other people and gave to
some of the ancient Israelites (Numbers 20:9-12). However, Yahweh does not punish Moses in any way
for the any of the evil legal dispositions Moses gave to some of the ancient Israelites.
3. The New Testament supports the view that Jesus actually believed that Mosaic Law in its entirety
came from Yahweh, and so did his disciples, and also Paul/Saul and others. I will address some of those
connections in much greater detail in later sections.
Objection 2.1.1.8: Yahweh is testing readers; readers are meant to realize that it would be very
immoral to apply the punishments commanded in those biblical passages.
Reply:
1. That clearly wouldnt be a reasonable interpretation. The passages command some people to behave
in a morally appalling manner, and there is no indication whatsoever in either the Old or the New
Testaments that Yahweh intended for people to understand that following his commands would be
morally abhorrent.
2. Even a test like that would not have been morally acceptable on Yahwehs part, since Yahweh
would have been spreading moral confusion, and knowingly so, since it was clear that in ancient
Israelite society, some (many) people actually believed that those biblical punishments were morally
acceptable, just, and that it was morally obligatory for at least some of them to enforce said
punishments.
Objection 2.1.1.9: Those passages do not come from either Yahweh, or Moses. Someone else made
them up.
Reply:
The New Testament supports the view that Jesus actually believed that Mosaic Law in its entirety came
from Yahweh, and so did his disciples, and also Paul/Saul and others. I will address some of those
connections in much greater detail in later sections.
Objection 2.1.1.10. The passages are real, but the stoning was carried out in a humane fashion, so

it wasnt a way of torturing people to death.

Reply:
1. Actually, the command is you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone
them to death with stones, so it seems people were to throw stones at them until they died. There is
nothing humane about that. Its a way of torturing people to death.
2. Moreover, the Old Testament describes a case of stoning in which Moses himself took part, and its
as follows:
GWEB:
Numbers 15:
15:32 While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering
sticks on the Sabbath day. 15:33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him
to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 15:34 They put him in custody,
because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 15:35 Yahweh said to
Moses, The man shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with
stones outside of the camp. 15:36 All the congregation brought him outside of the
camp, and stoned him to death with stones; as Yahweh commanded Moses.
While in that case, there was a camp rather than a city, the monstrous method of execution matches the
one prescribed in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 pretty well. There is no indication in the Bible that the
stoning was meant to be carried out differently in the cases under consideration.
Even if the of stoning was in reality modified by some humans at some later time, and became
somewhat less monstrous, it was still morally wrong, and in any case, Im addressing the method as
commanded in the Bible.
3. Regardless of how the stoning was to be carried out, at the very least many of the people being
executed did not deserve to be put to death for their actions. In fact, as I argued earlier, some of them
had done nothing wrong.
Objection 2.1.1.11. The passages are real, but women could only be legally pledged to a man with
their own consent, even if her fathers consent was also required. So, the women who were stoned
to death in this context were actual adulteresses. In fact, Genesis 24:1-7 is good evidence that a
womans consent was required.

Reply:
1. Even if a womans consent was required for pledging her to a man, women who were raped but did
not cry for a number of reasons could have been stoned to death as well. Thats morally abhorrent.
2. Leaving that aside, even if what this objection claims were true, it would still be morally abhorrent to
stone two people to death for adultery. The punishment is far more immoral than the behavior in
question.
3. Im not suggesting that the consent of the woman was never respected, but rather, Im saying it was
not legally required. On that note, lets take a look at the biblical evidence, beginning with the passages
mentioned in this objection as evidence that a womans consent was required.
GWEB:
Genesis 24.
24:1 Abraham was old, and well stricken in age. Yahweh had blessed Abraham in all
things. 24:2 Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his house, who ruled over all
that he had, "Please put your hand under my thigh. 24:3 I will make you swear by
Yahweh, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you shall not take a wife
for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live. 24:4 But you shall
go to my country, and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac."
24:5 The servant said to him, "What if the woman isn't willing to follow me to this
land? Must I bring your son again to the land you came from?"
24:6 Abraham said to him, "Beware that you don't bring my son there again. 24:7
Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house, and from the land
of my birth, who spoke to me, and who swore to me, saying, 'I will give this land to
your seed.' He will send his angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son
from there. 24:8 If the woman isn't willing to follow you, then you shall be clear from
this my oath. Only you shall not bring my son there again."
On one hand, Abrahams servant is concerned that the woman he the servant takes for Abrahams
son Isaac as a wife might not be willing to follow him to another land, and Abraham was also willing to
respect her wishes in that particular regard.
Its unclear why they would do that, but given that evidence in isolation, that suggests that either it was

illegal to take a woman to another land without her consent after she was pledged to a man, or
alternatively that Abraham would not do that even if it was legal, and Abrahams servant knew
Abraham well enough to know that Abraham wouldnt do that.
On the other hand, there is still a command from Abraham to his servant to go take a wife for Isaac, and
there appears to be no suggestion that it would be illegal for a womans father to pledge her to a man of
his choosing without her consent.
It might be that what was illegal if there was something illegal was to take her to another land
without her consent after her father had pledged her to a man of his choosing.
But to find more evidence, lets keep reading, and see how the events unfolded and how the servant
actually took a wife for his masters son Isaac.
GWEB:
Genesis 24.
24:9 The servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to
him concerning this matter. 24:10 The servant took ten camels, of his master's camels,
and departed, having a variety of good things of his master's with him. He arose, and
went to Mesopotamia, to the city of Nahor. 24:11 He made the camels kneel down
outside the city by the well of water at the time of evening, the time that women go
out to draw water. 24:12 He said, "Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, please
give me success this day, and show kindness to my master Abraham. 24:13 Behold, I
am standing by the spring of water. The daughters of the men of the city are coming
out to draw water. 24:14 Let it happen, that the young lady to whom I will say, 'Please
let down your pitcher, that I may drink,' and she will say, 'Drink, and I will also give
your camels a drink,'--let her be the one you have appointed for your servant Isaac.
By this I will know that you have shown kindness to my master."
24:15 It happened, before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah came out,
who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother,
with her pitcher on her shoulder. 24:16 The young lady was very beautiful to look at,
a virgin, neither had any man known her. She went down to the spring, filled her
pitcher, and came up. 24:17 The servant ran to meet her, and said, "Please give me a

drink, a little water from your pitcher."

24:18 She said, "Drink, my lord." She hurried, and let down her pitcher on her hand,
and gave him drink. 24:19 When she had done giving him drink, she said, "I will also
draw for your camels, until they have done drinking." 24:20 She hurried, and emptied
her pitcher into the trough, and ran again to the well to draw, and drew for all his
camels.
24:21 The man looked steadfastly at her, remaining silent, to know whether Yahweh
had made his journey prosperous or not. 24:22 It happened, as the camels had done
drinking, that the man took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets
for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold, 24:23 and said, "Whose daughter are
you? Please tell me. Is there room in your father's house for us to lodge in?"
24:24 She said to him, "I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she
bore to Nahor." 24:25 She said moreover to him, "We have both straw and provender
enough, and room to lodge in."
24:26 The man bowed his head, and worshiped Yahweh. 24:27 He said, "Blessed be
Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his loving kindness
and his truth toward my master. As for me, Yahweh has led me in the way to the
house of my master's relatives."
24:28 The young lady ran, and told her mother's house about these words. 24:29
Rebekah had a brother, and his name was Laban. Laban ran out to the man, to the
spring. 24:30 It happened, when he saw the ring, and the bracelets on his sister's
hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, "This is what the
man said to me," that he came to the man. Behold, he was standing by the camels at
the spring. 24:31 He said, "Come in, you blessed of Yahweh. Why do you stand
outside? For I have prepared the house, and room for the camels."
24:32 The man came into the house, and he unloaded the camels. He gave straw and
provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who
were with him. 24:33 Food was set before him to eat, but he said, "I will not eat until
I have told my message."

He said, "Speak on."

24:34 He said, "I am Abraham's servant. 24:35 Yahweh has blessed my master
greatly. He has become great. He has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold,
male servants and female servants, and camels and donkeys. 24:36 Sarah, my
master's wife, bore a son to my master when she was old. He has given all that he has
to him. 24:37 My master made me swear, saying, 'You shall not take a wife for my
son of the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I live, 24:38 but you shall go to
my father's house, and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son.' 24:39 I said to my
master, 'What if the woman will not follow me?' 24:40 He said to me, 'Yahweh,
before whom I walk, will send his angel with you, and prosper your way. You shall
take a wife for my son of my relatives, and of my father's house. 24:41 Then will you
be clear from my oath, when you come to my relatives. If they don't give her to you,
you shall be clear from my oath.' 24:42 I came this day to the spring, and said,
'Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you do prosper my way which I
go-- 24:43 behold, I am standing by this spring of water. Let it happen, that the
maiden who comes forth to draw, to whom I will say, "Give me, I pray you, a little
water from your pitcher to drink," 24:44 and she will tell me, "Drink, and I will also
draw for your camels,"--let her be the woman whom Yahweh has appointed for my
master's son.' 24:45 Before I had done speaking in my heart, behold, Rebekah came
forth with her pitcher on her shoulder. She went down to the spring, and drew. I said
to her, 'Please let me drink.' 24:46 She hurried and let down her pitcher from her
shoulder, and said, 'Drink, and I will also give your camels a drink.' So I drank, and
she made the camels drink also. 24:47 I asked her, and said, 'Whose daughter are
you?' She said, 'The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son, whom Milcah bore to him.' I
put the ring on her nose, and the bracelets on her hands. 24:48 I bowed my head, and
worshiped Yahweh, and blessed Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, who had
led me in the right way to take my master's brother's daughter for his son. 24:49 Now
if you will deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me. If not, tell me, that I may
turn to the right hand, or to the left."

24:50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered, "The thing proceeds from Yahweh. We
can't speak to you bad or good. 24:51 Behold, Rebekah is before you. Take her, and
go, and let her be your master's son's wife, as Yahweh has spoken."
So, once we have a fuller picture of what happened, we can see that:
a: In order to find out what woman Yahweh had chosen for Isaac, Abrahams servant asks for
some sort of sign.
b. He never asks Rebekah for her consent. Instead, he comes to the conclusion that Yahweh had
chosen Rebekah for Isaac on no good evidence, but thats beside the point here.
c. He tells Rebekahs father and brother about the story. They believe it without further questions
just on account that the servants had the bracelets -, and also come to believe that Yahweh has
made that choice on no good evidence, but thats beside the point here.
d. Given that they believe that Yahweh made that choice, Laban and Bethuel Rebekahs father
and brother just tell Abrahams servant to take Rebekah to another land, to be Isaacs wife.
Rebekahs consent is apparently not required to pledge her to Isaac, or even to transport her to
another land, once her father and brother have spoken.
Granted, it might be argued that Rebekahs consent was given, and that if she had not given her
consent, then her father Bethuel would not have been legally allowed to either pledge her to Isaac, or
send her to another land. But that is by no means clear in the story, so the story in Genesis 24:1-50 is at
least insufficient to settle the matter as to whether or not a womans consent was legally required for
her to be pledged to a man.
Still, if Genesis 24:1-50 were all the biblical evidence we have, that would be insufficient to establish
that a womans consent was not required.
However, Genesis 24:1-50 is not all of the biblical evidence we have. In fact, we have much more; so,
lets take a look at more biblical evidence:
GWEB:
Genesis 29:
29:9 While he was yet speaking with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep, for
she kept them. 29:10 It happened, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban, his
mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother, that Jacob went near,

and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his
mother's brother. 29:11 Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. 29:12
Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son. She
ran and told her father. 29:13 It happened, when Laban heard the news of Jacob, his
sister's son, that he ran to meet Jacob, and embraced him, and kissed him, and
brought him to his house. Jacob told Laban all these things. 29:14 Laban said to him,
Surely you are my bone and my flesh. He lived with him for a month. 29:15 Laban
said to Jacob, "Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for
nothing? Tell me, what will your wages be?" 29:16 Laban had two daughters. The
name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 29:17 Leah's
eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in form and attractive. 29:18 Jacob loved
Rachel. He said, "I will serve you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter."
29:19 Laban said, "It is better that I give her to you, than that I should give her to
another man. Stay with me." 29:20 Jacob served seven years for Rachel. They seemed
to him but a few days, for the love he had for her. 29:21 Jacob said to Laban, "Give
me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in to her." 29:22 Laban gathered
together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 29:23 It happened in the evening,
that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him. He went in to her. 29:24
Laban gave Zilpah his handmaid to his daughter Leah for a handmaid. 29:25 It
happened in the morning that, behold, it was Leah. He said to Laban, "What is this
you have done to me? Didn't I serve with you for Rachel? Why then have you
deceived me?" 29:26 Laban said, "It is not done so in our place, to give the younger
before the firstborn. 29:27 Fulfill the week of this one, and we will give you the other
also for the service which you will serve with me yet seven other years." 29:28 Jacob
did so, and fulfilled her week. He gave him Rachel his daughter as wife. 29:29 Laban
gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah, his handmaid, to be her handmaid. 29:30 He went
in also to Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet
seven other years.
29:31 Yahweh saw that Leah was hated, and he opened her womb, but Rachel was

barren. 29:32 Leah conceived, and bore a son, and she named him Reuben. For she
said, "Because Yahweh has looked at my affliction. For now my husband will love
me." 29:33 She conceived again, and bore a son, and said, "Because Yahweh has
heard that I am hated, he has therefore given me this son also." She named him
Simeon. 29:34 She conceived again, and bore a son. Said, "Now this time will my
husband be joined to me, because I have borne him three sons." Therefore was his
name called Levi. 29:35 She conceived again, and bore a son. She said, "This time
will I praise Yahweh." Therefore she named him Judah. Then she stopped bearing.
Genesis 31:
31:41 These twenty years I have been in your house. I served you fourteen years for
your two daughters, and six years for your flock, and you have changed my wages ten
times
It is apparent in the passages above that the marriage was a deal between Laban and Jacob. Laban
promised to give Jacob one of his daughters Rachel in exchange for seven years of work, and then
he gave Jacob his other daughter Leah instead, and only gave him Rachel later in exchange for
seven more years. The consent of Leah or Rachel was not part of the deal.
This is not to say that they did not want to be married to Jacob. Maybe they did. But it was clearly not a
legal requirement in their social context. And Yahweh did not complain about that, while he did impose
the punishment of stoning a woman to death if she was pledged to a man but had consensual sex with
someone else or was raped but did not cry.
GWEB:
Exodus 21:
21:7 "If a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go out as the
male servants do. 21:8 If she doesn't please her master, who has married her to
himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a
foreign people, seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her. 21:9 If he marries her to his
son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 21:10 If he takes another
wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights.
21:11 If he doesn't do these three things for her, she may go free without paying any

money.
So, its clear that a father even had the legal right to sell her daughter as a servant, and then her master
could legally marry his servant to himself, or to his son. While this does not address directly the case of
a fathers pledging a woman to be married to a man but rather, selling her as a servant -, it shows the
extent of a mans legal power over his daughters, in ancient Israelite society.
Moreover, independently of the issue of a woman being pledged by her father to a man without her
consent, the particular legal disposition quoted above also implied legalized rape, since a man could
legally sell his daughter as a servant, and then her master could legally marry her to himself or to his
son, and then he or his son could legally rape her.
GWEB:
Joshua 15:
15:13 To Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a portion among the children of Judah,
according to the commandment of Yahweh to Joshua, even Kiriath Arba, which Arba
was the father of Anak (the same is Hebron). 15:14 Caleb drove out there the three
sons of Anak: Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak. 15:15 He went
up there against the inhabitants of Debir: now the name of Debir before was Kiriath
Sepher. 15:16 Caleb said, He who strikes Kiriath Sepher, and takes it, to him will I
give Achsah my daughter as wife. 15:17 Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of
Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife.
Judges 1:
1:11 From there he went against the inhabitants of Debir. (Now the name of Debir
before was Kiriath Sepher.) 1:12 Caleb said, He who strikes Kiriath Sepher, and takes
it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as wife. 1:13 Othniel the son of Kenaz,
Caleb's younger brother, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife.
Here, Caleb openly promises to give his daughter Achsah as wife to whoever strikes and takes Kiriath
Sepher. There is no suggestion in the Bible that the promise was illegal, or that it was conditioned to
Achsahs agreement, or that Achsah had previously agreed. No one asked for clarification, either. And
when Othniel took Kiriath Sepher, Caleb gave him Achsah as wife as Caleb had promised -, again
without any suggestion of an illegal act, or that she had a say on the matter. Again, this is not to say

that, in this particular case, that she was forced. Maybe she was not. But rather, that there was no legal
requirement that she consented.
1 Samuel 17
17:22 David left his baggage in the hand of the keeper of the baggage, and ran to the
army, and came and greeted his brothers. 17:23 As he talked with them, behold, there
came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the ranks of
the Philistines, and spoke according to the same words: and David heard them. 17:24
All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid.
17:25 The men of Israel said, Have you seen this man who is come up? surely to defy
Israel is he come up: and it shall be, that the man who kills him, the king will enrich
him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house free
in Israel.
Here, too, it seems that the king would give his daughter to whoever could defeat Goliath. It could be
anyone. There is no suggestion of a condition that she had to consent.
2 Kings 14
14:5 It happened, as soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, that he killed
his servants who had slain the king his father: 14:6 but the children of the murderers
he didn't put to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of
Moses, as Yahweh commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the
children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for
his own sin. 14:7 He killed of Edom in the Valley of Salt ten thousand, and took Sela
by war, and called its name Joktheel, to this day. 14:8 Then Amaziah sent messengers
to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look
one another in the face. 14:9 Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of
Judah, saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon,
saying, Give your daughter to my son as wife: and there passed by a wild animal that
was in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle. 14:10 You have indeed struck Edom, and
your heart has lifted you up: glory of it, and abide at home; for why should you
meddle to your hurt, that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you? 14:11 But

Amaziah would not hear.

So, Jehoash the king of Israel told Amaziah the king of Judah to give his daughter to Jehoashs
son as wife. While Amaziah did not accept, that seemed like a negotiation between two kings, with no
suggestion that Amaziahs daughters consent was legally required.
Given the passages above, the biblical evidence supports the conclusion that there was no requirement
that a woman agree to be pledged.
As I mentioned before, Im not suggesting no fathers considered their daughters choices either in the
real ancient Israel or in the ancient Israel of the biblical story, but Im assuming for the sake of the
argument that the stories did happen. But the point is that the daughters consent was not legally
required. So, in particular, a woman who was pledged to a man she did not want to get married to and
had sex with someone else could be legally stoned to death for that. Still, of course even when she
consented, as I pointed out stoning her to death for adultery would be abhorrent.
In addition to all of that, rape was legal if a father sold his daughter as a servant, and her master chose
to marry her to himself or to his son.
2.1.2. Consensual sex outside marriage, or rape?
GWEB:
Deuteronomy 22:
22:28 If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay
hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22:29 then the man who lay with her
shall give to the lady's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because
he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
According to this disposition, it seems that according to Old Testament Law, if a man rapes a woman
but her father has not pledged her to another man, then he has to pay a sum of money to him, and then
is forced to marry her and so, shes forced to marry him as well, and then he may legally continue to
rape her after that.
That seems to be one more morally appalling disposition in the Old Testament.
However, I have encountered some objections from Christians who interpret the passage is not about
cases of rape, but about cases of consensual sex.
So, an objection might go as follows variants are handled similarly, since I will consider both the

hypothesis that its about rape, and the hypothesis that its not.
Objection 2.1.2.1. Deuteronomy 22:28 is not about rape, but about consensual sex. Thats why the
text says theyre found, and thats why Deuteronomy 22:28 (even in the original biblical text)
uses an expression different from the expression used in Deuteronomy 22:25, which considers
actual cases of rape.
Moreover, clearly the fact that hes forced to marry her suggests an interest in her well-being,
which would not be present if they wanted to force her to marry her rapist.
Reply:
1. Deuteronomy 22:28 also uses an expression different from that used in Deuteronomy 22:23 a case
of consensual sex. So, the fact that its a different expression does not settle the matter. However, in
Deuteronomy 22:28, the translation above is lay hold on her, which does indicate rape. Another
version of that translation [8] states that he grabs her, which also indicates rape.
Still, other translations have different wordings, but then, the same applies to theyre discovered. So,
that seems to be not decisive.
2. If this passage does not include cases in which she does not consent cases of rape -, either
exclusively or together with cases of consensual sex, then it seems that Deuteronomy 22:29 does not
address cases in which shes raped, which also would be unjust, even if not as much as forcing the
victim to marry the rapist.
3. Actually, the case of consensual sex outside marriage was already addressed by Yahwehs laws in
Exodus:
GWEB:
Exodus 22:
22:16 If a man entices a virgin who isnt pledged to be married, and lies with her, he
shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 22: 17 If her father utterly refuses to
give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Here too, a womans choice is unjustly ignored by Yahweh, who commands that its up to her father to
decide whether she will marry the man she had consensual sex with, regardless of whether she wants to
marry him or not, or whether she wants to have sex with him again.
It is clear that there is no concern for her well-being when she makes a choice to have sex. She may

end up being denied a marriage she and her lover want, or much worse even she may end up being
handed over to a man she doesnt want to have sex with anymore a man who could then legally rape
her.
Rather than concern for her well-being, what seems to be one of Yahwehs concerns is that a woman
not be allowed to choose her husband against her fathers wishes, closing even an indirect potential
method of having sex with someone she wants to marry just in case she does want to marry him.
Now, in that context, a potential interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28 is that it was indeed about rape,
and in that case, shes not considered to be at fault because it was not her choice, whereas shes
mistakenly considered to be at fault in the consensual case.
If so, there is perhaps even some degree of concern about her well-being in the case of rape. That
would explain the command He may not put her away all his days, which may be a very evil way in
which someone as morally confused as Yahweh was manifests concern for a womans well-being,
condemning her to a dire fate, while perhaps even believing hes doing her a favor. Not that Yahwehs
deep moral confusion would excuse his behavior.
An alternative interpretation is that both Deuteronomy 22:28 and Exodus 22:16-17 are about
consensual sex. If so, then Yahweh did give two incompatible commands on the matter, since in one
case, whether the woman and her lover get married depends on the womans father choice, whereas in
the other case, it does not.
Maybe he changed his mind after giving the first command?
In any case, both of the commands are unjust, for the reasons mentioned above.
There are plenty of other examples of unjust commands, of course, some of which I have considered
above, and some of which I will consider below. In particular, the situation of a woman in a situation
such as the ones considered in this subsection gets even worse if the fact that she was raped, or
alternatively that she had consensual sex, is not discovered before her father chooses to pledge her to
another man.
More precisely, lets say a woman has sex consensually when shes single and not pledged to anyone,
but nobody finds out, and later her father chooses to pledge her to a man. Later even, shes turned
over to that man her father chose. If he complains because the tokens of her virginity are not found
and that is in fact the case, then shes stoned to death.

Also, lets say a woman is raped when shes single and not pledged to anyone, but nobody finds out,
and later her father chooses to pledge her to a man. Later even, shes turned over to that man her
father chose. If he complains because the tokens of her virginity are not found and that is in fact the
case, then shes stoned to death.
Additionally, even if she did not have any sex, but the tokens of her virginity are not found and he
complains, shes stoned to death.
So, lets take a look at that appalling biblical command:
2.1.3. More on sex outside marriage, adultery and rape.
GWEB:
Deuteronomy 22:
22:13 If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and hates her, 22:14 and accuses
her of shameful things, and brings up an evil name on her, and says, I took this
woman, and when I came near to her, I didn't find in her the tokens of virginity; 22:15
then shall the father of the young lady, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens
of the young lady's virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; 22:16 and the young
lady's father shall tell the elders, I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he hates
her; 22:17 and behold, he has accused her of shameful things, saying, I didn't find in
your daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's
virginity. They shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 22:18 The elders
of that city shall take the man and chastise him; 22:19 and they shall fine him one
hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young lady, because he
has brought up an evil name on a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may
not put her away all his days. 22:20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of
virginity were not found in the young lady; 22:21 then they shall bring out the young
lady to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death
with stones, because she has done folly in Israel, to play the prostitute in her father's
house: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.
So, Yahweh commanded that if a woman has sex and then marries someone who doesnt know shes
not a virgin, she is to be stoned to death.

Furthermore, Yahweh attempted to justify the punishment, implying that she deserved to be stoned to
death because she had sex before marriage and then married someone who did not know that she
wasnt a virgin, and apparently for prostituting herself at her fathers house.
Of course, even if she had sex before marriage and didnt tell, that does not mean she was a prostitute,
but perhaps, someone might suggest that the translation is mistaken.
In any case, whether or not she was a prostitute or whether Yahweh claimed that she was, it is clear that
a woman does not deserve to be stoned to death for any of that. The same applies if the woman lived in
ancient Israelite society.
Additionally, not finding the tokens of her virginity does not entail that she wasnt a virgin, of course.
Its an assumption that might or might not turn out to be correct, depending on the case. But lets leave
aside that issue; even if the evidence in support of the claim that she wasnt a virgin had been
convincing, the fact remains that she didnt deserve to be stoned to death for having sex before
marriage, and then marry someone who did not know that.
In fact, she did not do anything immoral in this context in many cases, such as:
a. A woman has consensual sex with a man she likes, before being pledged by her father, to a
man she doesnt want to marry. In this case, she isnt guilty of any immoral behavior in this
context. The guilty parties are her husband for raping her and her father as an accomplice,
for handing her over to a rapist.
b. A woman is pledged by her father to a man she did not want to marry, and later she had sex
with someone else she likes. But later even, she is turned over to the man her father chose. In this
case, she isnt guilty of any immoral behavior in this context. The guilty parties are her husband
for raping her and her father as an accomplice, for handing her over to a rapist.
c. A woman has consensual sex with a man she liked, and then he leaves her. Why should she tell
others she wasnt a virgin? Its her business, not theirs. But then, her father pledges her to
someone else, and hands her over.
d. A woman is knocked out and raped by a stranger, long before being handed over to the man
her father already pledged her to ignoring her will, since she does not want to marry that man.
She says nothing out of fear of being executed because she did not cry when she was raped. So,
once shes handed over to the man her father chose, he rapes her since she did not consent to

being pledged or to having sex with that man -, and vilely accuses her of immorality for not
having the tokens of her virginity.
Clearly, here the guilty parties are the two rapists and the father who is an accessory to rape, and
moreover to enslaving his daughter even if shes not classified as a slave by their customs. But
she isnt guilty of anything. Yet, Yahwehs law punishes her, and lets the father and the legal
rapist off the hook. The other rapist would have been punished if he had been found, but he
would not have been punished for rape, since rape was not even a crime under Yahwehs evil law.
In any event, it would have been very immoral to follow the command, at least barring things like
justified belief in a credible threat of something worse for her, like Yahwehs inflicting infinite torture
on the woman targeted by the command unless she isnt stoned to death but that wasnt the case, nor
was there any other such justification; on the contrary, its implicitly claimed in the Bible that she
deserved to be stoned to death.
As an analogy, lets say Hamid lives in the early 21st century[9] in, say, rural Afghanistan, and is told
that a woman who commits adultery deserves to be stoned to death, and that her execution by stoning
was commanded by a morally perfect being who has as much power as attributed to Yahweh in the
Bible. Hamid has not had contact with other religions beside the local version of Islam.
Clearly, he should not follow the command. He should not stone women for adultery. Nor should he
believe that a woman who commits adultery deserves such fate. Moreover, he should not believe that a
morally perfect being with that power issued that command.
Yet, the situation of an ancient Israelite who receives the biblical command quoted above seems
relevantly in the senses that:
i. Most ancient Israelites had not witnessed any of Yahwehs displays of power, so what they had
was a claim that a powerful and morally good/perfect creator had commanded so.
ii. Adultery doesnt merit being stoned to death as punishment.
iii. Granted, ancient Israelite law has some good commands too. But for that matter, so does
Taliban law, or different versions of Sharia Law. The atrocities that they contain is what makes
those laws overall bad.
iv. Even those ancient Israelites who did witness some of Yahwehs displays of power wouldnt
be in a different position with regard to an assessment of the moral character of Yahweh and his

commands power does not entail or suggest moral goodness.

On the other hand, the cases are not relevantly similar in that:
v. Adultery is usually morally wrong at least assuming that the person wasnt forced into her
marriage -, whereas the behavior for which a woman is being punished according to this
particular biblical disposition at least often isnt at most, it might be immoral in some cases, if
she freely made a promise and then lied, etc., but often it is not. Obviously, even in such cases,
even prison time would be appallingly unjust. Yet, Yahweh commanded that she be stoned to
death.
Now, someone might suggest that even if it would have been immoral to follow the command given by
Yahweh and stone her to death for having sex before marriage and then marrying someone who didnt
know that she wasnt a virgin, it does not follow that Yahweh was being immoral by giving the
command in question.
But using ones sense of right and wrong, one may assess not only the morality of following the
command, but also the morality of Yahwehs actions, when he gives commands that would be
atrociously immoral to follow, makes abhorrent false moral claims or implications about what people
deserve, etc., spreading immorality, while he could easily refrain from doing so, and while there is no
sufficient threat that would justify Yahwehs actions.
Objection 2.1.3.1. Yahweh has sovereignty over life and death. He gives life, and he may take it
without acting immorally if he so chooses, with no need for any other justification. He does no
wrong by calling for the stoning of those women, and those following his orders do no wrong,
either.
Reply:
a. There is no good reason to believe that its not immoral for Yahweh to take someones life just
because he created that person.
b. Even assuming Yahweh wouldnt be acting immorally if he killed a person, Yahweh is not saying
that the non-virgin should be killed because he says so. Rather, he falsely claims that she deserves to be
stoned to death as a punishment for her actions.
c. This command does not only involve taking her life. Rather, its a command to torture her to death.
Shes not only to be killed; shes to be stoned to death. Its a horrendous way of dying, regardless of

whether the stoning procedure was somewhat less painful than other ways of stoning people to death.
d. The fact remains that an ancient Israelite who received the command should not have followed it,
just as Hamid shouldnt follow the similar command he receives. Neither should the ancient Israelite in
question have thought it came from a morally perfect ruler of the world.
Objection 2.1.3.2. She deserves to be stoned to death not for having sex before marriage at her
fathers house and then marrying someone who did not know, but for disobeying a morally
perfect creator.
Reply:
a. Thats not what the Bible indicates. Rather, the Bible implies that she deserves such a punishment
because she had sex before marriage and then married someone who did not know that she wasnt a
virgin which might not even be true -, and/or apparently for prostituting herself at her fathers house
which might not even be true -, but not for disobeying a morally perfect creator.
b. It should be obvious to a human being who is contemplating the matter rationally that a morally
good or morally perfect entity would not command that a woman be stoned to death just for having sex
before marriage and then marrying someone who does not know that she wasnt a virgin, and/or for
prostituting herself.
c. Actually, disobeying a morally perfect creator, on its own, does not merit being tortured to death. On
that note, lets say that a morally perfect creator tells Alice to paint her car, and she doesnt do it. Would
Alice deserve torture to death because of it? It seems pretty clear that she wouldnt, even if she believes
that the order came from a morally perfect creator.
d. There are plenty of violations of the Mosaic Law that are not punished by death, let alone by torture
to death. One such case is provided by the very Bible passage under consideration: if a man falsely
accuses his wife of not being a virgin when she marries him, he is not to be tortured to death. Instead,
he is to pay a fine.
Other versions of the Bible might include a more severe punishment for him than a fine[10], but
nothing comparable to torture to death.
Moreover, there are plenty of cases in which Old Testament Law in any versions establish
punishments not involving either torture or death for those who break the law.
So, a reasonable person in ancient Israel i.e., one of those to whom the command was directed

should not have concluded that the reason she allegedly deserved the punishment was only or chiefly
disobedience. And neither should we.
e. I gave more detailed arguments against this type of objection earlier, when assessing other biblical
commands. Some of the same arguments apply here, with only minor adaptations, but the same basic
reasons hold. I will not repeat the points here for the sake of brevity.
Objection 2.1.3.3. She deserves to be stoned to death not for having sex before marriage at her
fathers house and then marrying someone who did not know, but for disobeying a morally
perfect creator in the particular case in which such a creator decides that the adequate
punishment for breaking his rules is to be tortured to death.
Reply:
a. As before, thats not what the Bible indicates. The Bible implies that she deserves such a punishment
because she had sex before marriage and then married someone who did not know that she wasnt a
virgin, and/or apparently for prostituting herself at her fathers house which may not even be true -,
but not for disobeying a morally perfect creator.
b. It should be obvious that a morally good or morally perfect entity would not command that a woman
be stoned to death for having sex before marriage and then marrying someone who does not know that
she wasnt a virgin, and/or for prostituting herself. On that note, we may consider the Hamid analogy
again.
c. Actually, disobeying a morally perfect creator, on its own, does not merit being tortured to death, as
explained above, and in fact if the creator decided that punishment, then he wouldnt be morally perfect
in the first place.
d. With that criterion, someone might posit a religion in which a morally perfect creator called Todd
commands that those who, say, eats broccoli, be tortured to death, but those who rape or torture
children for fun be forced to pay a small fine to the parents, and nothing more.
Its obvious that we can tell, on moral grounds alone, that such religion would be false. The point is that
a morally perfect creator would not command either what Todd commands in that example, or what
Yahweh commanded in the biblical story under consideration.
e. I gave more detailed arguments against this type of objection earlier, when assessing other biblical
commands. Some of the same arguments apply here, with only minor adaptations, but the same basic

reasons hold. I will not repeat the points here for the sake of brevity.
Objection 2.1.3.4. That command has to be considered in context, and the context is given by
Yahwehs covenant with Israel.
Reply:
Lets take a look at the matter:
Yahweh made a pact with some of the leaders of ancient Israel.
He agreed to provide some kind of assistance in terms of food supplies, sometimes military help, etc.,
and on the other hand he commanded that they torture to death any woman who has premarital sex and
then gets married to someone who does not know that shes not a virgin.
Even if Yahweh always did as agreed, it should once again be obvious that that would not excuse his
actions. On top of that, he actually lied, by implying that they deserved to be stoned to death, unless he
himself was confused and falsely believed that she deserved that punishment.
So, the covenant does not alter the assessment of his actions as profoundly immoral, and his moral
claims or implications, false.
Moreover, it would still be immoral for any of the ancient Israelites to obey that command.
On that note, if some of their leaders and/or ancestors made a pact with a powerful being, and
according to that pact, a woman who has sex before marriage and then marries someone who doesnt
know that she wasnt a virgin is to be stoned to death, they should refrain from behaving as
commanded, unless there is a sufficient threat, like a credible threat from that being to torture the
victim for eternity unless some of the ancient Israelites stone her to death.
However, there was no threat of a sufficient caliber as far as ancient Israelites could tell, and moreover,
even on the face of such a threat, they should never have follow the command willingly, or believing
that the entity giving them was morally good.
Objection 2.1.3.5. Yahweh realized that the command under consideration, alongside other harsh
commands, was required to keep social peace among the ancient Israelites, who werent ready for
a better law. Their hearts were hard.
Reply:
a. The command under consideration wasnt merely harsh; it was profoundly unjust. It was a command
to stone woman to death if she had sex before marriage and then married someone who didnt know

she was not a virgin. Its appalling.

b. Yahweh also made the false moral implication that women who did that deserved to be stoned to
death. Either he lied, or he was very mistaken.
c. Yahweh is an entity of immense power, capable of and willing to intervene in the history of Israel on
many occasions. Obviously, he could have pointed out that those women did not deserve to be stoned
to death, instead of falsely claiming that they did and then commanding that they be stoned.
No social breakdown would have followed if Yahweh had refrained from making false moral claims or
implications and from issuing a profoundly unjust command, or even if he had commanded otherwise,
and corrected the moral errors of those ancient Israelites who were mistaken.
What would the ancient Israelites have done, if he had not commanded that they be stoned to death, or
implied that she deserved it?
Rebel against an immensely powerful being who can easily defeat them?
Should we believe that his commands would only be obeyed by most of the population if they were in
line with what the people hes giving commands to already wanted?
That seems preposterous; the ancient Israelites in the story are supposed to be human and not severely
mentally ill, and that is not how human would behave not even morally bad humans.
And if some of those ancient Israelites would irrationally have rebelled against a being that they knew
was immensely powerful if said being didnt give them the evil commands they wanted, or gave them
good commands instead, then that wouldnt excuse his actions, either.
On that note, the potential absurd rebellion of some brutal people who wanted to stone to death any
woman who had sex before marriage and then married someone who didnt know that she wasnt a
virgin, would not justify giving the evil command that those people wanted, just to appease them.
Also, it would not justify telling them or implying that the commands were actually just, and that their
victims deserved to be stoned to death, which would likely even reinforce their false moral beliefs.
d. Those ancient Israelites ought to have disobeyed Yahwehs commands to torture people to death
people who clearly did not deserve it.
Granted, there are hypothetical scenarios in which it is not the case that people should disobey
commands like that. For instance, if Yahweh gave some people enough reasons to think that if they
stone her to death, she will cease to exist, but if they dont, Yahweh himself will torture her for eternity,

then all other things equal, its not the case that they ought to disobey the command to stone her to
death.
However, that wasnt the case in the biblical description, and there was no other threat that would
justify it. Moreover, while a threat like that would justify following such a command in some cases, it
would still be horribly immoral to carry it out as a means of punishing the victim, and/or approving of
the command in question.
Moses, for example, approved of the commands given by Yahweh, and thus in particular of say, stoning
a woman to death because she had sex before marriage and then married someone who did not know
that she wasnt a virgin. He was also in favor of the other commands, like stoning a disobedient,
drunkard, glutton son to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), etc., and so, Moses too was a profoundly evil
person. Just because Yahweh proved to be powerful wouldnt give Moses or any of the other ancient
Israelites any good reason to believe that he was morally good.
On the contrary, his orders and other deeds gave them sufficient reasons to tell, beyond any reasonable
doubt, that Yahweh wasnt morally good.
Side note: in reality and leaving aside for a moment the assumption that Yahweh exists -, the fact is
that the humans who commanded that people be stoned or burned to death just for sex crimes
involving only consensual sex between adults, were the real monsters in this case, since Yahweh does
not exist. Some of those people just invented a creator as immoral as they were. But thats beyond the
scope of this essay.
Objection 2.1.3.6. Those passages were not meant to be taken literally.
Reply:
Those are commands, and moral claims or implications, and the passages are in a context of many
other such commands and claims or implications that are part of Old Testament Law. There is nothing
whatsoever in the text indicating that those passages werent meant to be taken literally.
If Yahweh issued commands and made moral claims and/or implications, he should have expected that
they would be taken literally, since thats how commands and moral claims or implications are usually
taken, and thats how his commands and moral claims or implications were usually taken. And, in fact,
going by the biblical description, they were indeed taken literally.
So, if he did not mean for them to be taken literally, he should have clarified that.

Moreover, at any point after his commands were (as expected) taken literally, he could have clarified
that he did not mean to actually command what he commanded (i.e., that the command wasnt literal,
for some reason), and that he did not mean to claim or imply what he claimed or implied.
He did not, so that would be his moral fault even if he hadnt meant for them to be taken literally
though, again, it seems clear in the text that he did.
Objection 2.1.3.7. If Yahweh wanted those harsh laws to be enacted, then why did Jesus later
chose to spare the adulterer?
Reply:
Stepping out of the story for a moment, it seems that whoever wrote that story about Jesus had an
agenda that was quite different from the agenda of whoever wrote the part of the Old Testament under
consideration.
If the claim that Jesus spared a woman who had committed adultery is true, then Jesus too had a
different agenda from whoever wrote Deuteronomy, and probably different moral beliefs as well.
But leaving that aside and going back to the events as described in the Bible, we may point out that:
a. The command in question isnt just harsh, but profoundly unjust.
b. Whatever the reasons for Yahwehs later change of heart, that does not excuse his previous
commands.
c. In addition to immoral commands, there is the issue of false moral claims or implications, like the
implication that the punishment in question was deserved.
d. The fact remains that an ancient Israelite who read the law should not have interpreted that they were
non-literal, given context.
e. Some deeds of Yahweh described in the New Testament do not appear to be better than any of those
described in the Old Testament. In fact, some of them are even a lot more evil if the interpretation that
there is infinite hell is correct. But thats a matter for a later section.
f. Even if Jesus himself wouldnt stone a woman for that behavior, he did approve of the commands
themselves, at least as commands to the ancient Israelites, and considered it morally acceptable for
those ancient Israelites to follow Old Testament Law. I will address this matter in much greater detail
later.
Objection 2.1.3.8. Those laws applied only to the ancient Israelites, but do not apply after Jesus.

Reply:
Thats beside the point.
It remains the case that Yahweh gave immoral commands and made false moral claims and/or
implications, even if he only gave such commands to some people, and only made such claims or
implications before some people.
It remains the case that the ancient Israelites should not have followed those commands, nor should
have the believe that they came from a morally good creator. Nor should we believe so.
Objection 2.1.3.9. Those passages are not true. That wasnt the law given by Jesuss father, but a
law made by humans.
Reply:
Then, why did Jesus himself not point out that those laws were not the work of his father?
In fact, what Jesus said was:
OEB[1]
Luke 16:
16 The law and the prophets sufficed until the time of John. Since then the good news
of the kingdom of God has been told, and everybody has been forcing their way into
it.
17 It would be easier for the heavens and the earth to disappear than for one stroke of
a letter in the law to be lost.
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to do away with the law or the prophets;
I have not come to do away with them, but to complete them. 18 For I tell you, until
the heavens and the earth disappear, not even the smallest letter, nor one stroke of a
letter, will disappear from the law until all is done.
GWEB:
Luke 16:
16:16 The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the Good News of
the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 16:17 But it
is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tiny stroke of a pen in the

law to fall.
Matthew 5
5:17 "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to
destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away
from the law, until all things are accomplished.
So, regardless the obscurity about what exactly hes going to change and what hes going to leave
intact, it is apparent that he acknowledges the whole content of Old Testament Law as originating in
Yahweh since in that context, the law is Old Testament Law. By the way, it is also apparent that
Jesus approves of it.
As I mentioned, I will address the matter of Jesuss beliefs in much greater detail later.
Objection 2.1.3.10. Yahweh is justified because hes warning his people not to do evil.
Reply:
Hes falsely claiming or implying that a woman who had premarital sex and then married someone who
did not know that she did deserves to be stoned to death, and is commanding that they actually stone
her to death.
That cannot be excused as warning his people not to do evil.
Moreover, as in the analogous case of Hamid, it would be morally evil to actually follow the command.
Objection 2.1.3.11. Youre just making an emotional appeal. You have no basis for claiming that
the actions of Yahweh are immoral, or that the claims he made are false.
Reply:
Actually, Im using my own sense of right and wrong, which is the normal way of proceeding when
assessing moral. That allows me and readers too, of course to make an assessment in the case of
Hamid, and for that matter in the case of Yahweh, the ancient Israelites who followed his commands,
etc.
Im also appealing to readers own senses of right and wrong, but again, thats how one normally goes
about trying to persuade people in moral matters.
In fact, even many Christians agree with the assessments Im making namely, that the command in
question is morally appalling, and that the implication that those women deserve that punishment is not

true -, and then claim that those commands did not come from Yahweh, or that the passages were not
meant to be taken literally.
As I explained above, those objections do not work, but those who make them intuitively assess that a
personal being that behaves in the way Yahweh is depicted in this case, would not be morally perfect,
or even morally good.
That aside, its true that someone might insist that their moral sense is in fact different, and that their
assessment is that stoning a woman to death for having sex and then marrying someone who didnt
know that, was morally acceptable in ancient Israel, and that she deserved to be stoned to death.
Leaving aside the fact that in some cases the marriage was not her choice but her father just handed her
over to a man without her consent, and even in cases in which she consented, its not the case that
stoning her to death for that was acceptable in ancient Israel, or that she deserved such punishment.
However, the people who insist that it was acceptable and/or that she deserved it wont be persuaded by
this example, and probably not by anything in this essay, either. Yet, that does not mean that somehow
my argument can be dismissed as an emotional appeal because it appeals to the readers sense of
right and wrong. Furthermore, with that criterion, someone might dismiss any moral case as an
emotional appeal (e.g., the Hamid example too), since ultimately all of them do appeal to the readers
sense of right and wrong, even if implicitly.
So, its clear that the emotional appeal objection fails.
Objection 2.1.3.12. If stoning a woman to death for having sex before marriage and then
marrying someone who didnt know she was no longer a virgin was so clearly immoral in the
social context of the ancient Israelites, the ancient Israelites would have realized that. However,
they actually embraced the law, because they saw it was good. Its your sense of right and wrong
that is giving you the wrong result, maybe because youre not considering the social context, or
for some other reason.
Reply:
This kind of objection might be raised against pretty much any moral argument when the person
making the assessment is not in the social context in which the events take place, and many or even
most of the people in the given context would disagree with the assessment in question. The ancient
Israelites are no exception in that regard. Its not generally a good objection, and it fails in this case too.

But lets consider a few cases as examples of this:

a. It is clear to a human being who is contemplating the matter carefully and rationally that, say, people
who leave Islam do not deserve to be decapitated for that. It appears that none of that is apparent to
many people in places such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Afghanistan. Many of those living in that
context fail to see it. In some places, most people fail to see that.
Perhaps, they make that mistake because some beliefs to which they have strong emotional attachments
get in the way of a proper assessment, and/or they havent even considered the matter and theyve been
told that those moral claims was true by an authority figure and/or some other reason it depends on
the person.
Some of those people would realize or do realize how unjust the punishment in question is if they
actually have to decided whether to apply it, and give it more thought. Others would/do not realize
even then.
But in any case, the point is that people who leave Islam do not deserve to be killed for any of that even
in the social contexts in which theyre sometimes killed for that and/or in which the law establishes the
death penalty for that whether its enforced or not -, and even if most people there believe that they
deserve it and we dont need to live in one of those social contexts to properly make that assessment.
That assessment holds even if a powerful creator had inspired the Quran, or dictated it, etc.
b. It is also clear to a human being who is contemplating the matter carefully and rationally that, say, a
woman who has sex before getting married, or who refuses to marry a person chosen by her father,
does not deserve to, say, have her face disfigured with acid for that, even if the acid attack happens in a
social context in which such attacks are common, and even if such attacks are believed to be morally
right by many or even most of the people living in those social groups not by all, of course; in
particular, usually, the victims realize that the attacks are unacceptable, and so do a number of other
people. Those who live in those social contexts more often make the mistake of believing that those
attacks are acceptable than those who do not, but in any case, we can tell that theyre unacceptable.
c. It is also clear that a woman who has sex before marriage and then marries someone who didnt
know she wasnt a virgin today or in ancient Israel, or in any other society does not deserve to be
stoned to death for that. More precisely, its clear to a human being who is contemplating the matter
carefully and rationally.

It was not clear to ancient Israelite lawmakers, and perhaps to most of the ancient Israelites, and also to
many other people in the past, in different societies. Generally, people who live in brutal social
environments may be more prone on average not to dedicate time to ponder whether their laws are just,
and when they do, they may be more prone to do so looking through the tainted lens of some false
beliefs that theyre emotionally attached to. But that does not challenge the warrant of our assessments
of the matter.
Objection 2.1.3.13. The stoning was carried out in a humane fashion, so it wasnt a way of
torturing people to death.
Reply:
a. In fact, the command is that they shall bring out the young lady to the door of her fathers house,
and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones. It seems, then, that all of those men would
pelt her to death with stones. Thats a horrendous way of dying, and surely a way of torturing people to
death. The fact that she might get lucky and get killed or knocked out by the first stone does not
change the fact that the method is an atrocity. There is nothing humane about that.
Even if the of stoning was in reality modified by some humans at some later time, and became
somewhat less monstrous, it was still evil, and in any case, Im addressing the method as commanded
in the Bible.
b. She did not deserve to be executed in any way, let alone suffer the horror, the fear, generally the
terrifying ordeal that a person in that situation would have had to endure, from the moment at which
shes told shes going to be stoned to death, to the moment at which she dies, or loses consciousness
before that. Incidentally, any death sentence, by stoning or by any other methods in place, would have
inflicted a lot of suffering on a woman who didnt deserve anything like that, so that would have been
deeply immoral already, but the method of killing makes it even worse.
c. As an analogy, we may also consider the Hamid case. What if the method of stoning that hes told is
proper is the same as used in ancient Israel? Clearly, the assessment about what she should do given
above remains unaffected.
Objection 2.1.3.14. The stoning was not carried out in that fashion. Its not the case that all those
men would pelt her to death with stones. Rather, she would be thrown off a building, and then a
man would kill her with a big stone if she survived, or something along those lines.

Reply:
a. Thats not what the Bible commands. Moreover, thats not how the Old Testament describes another
case of stoning one in which Moses himself takes part:
GWEB:
Numbers 15:
15:32 While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering
sticks on the Sabbath day. 15:33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him
to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 15:34 They put him in custody,
because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 15:35 Yahweh said to
Moses, The man shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with
stones outside of the camp. 15:36 All the congregation brought him outside of the
camp, and stoned him to death with stones; as Yahweh commanded Moses.
Clearly, they did not stone him in the way described in this objection.
There is no good reason to think that the method of stoning a man to death for working on a Sabbath
was so radically different from the method of stoning a woman to death for not having the tokens of
her virginity the night she was handed over to the man his father decided to hand her over to.
As I mentioned before, even if the of stoning was in reality modified by some humans at some later
time, and became somewhat less monstrous, it was still evil, and in any case, Im addressing the
method as commanded in the Bible.
b. Even if the stoning were meant to be carried out as described in this objection, the punishment would
still remain a moral atrocity. She deserved neither to be executed, nor to endure the horror, the fear,
generally the terrifying ordeal that a person in that situation would have had to endure, from the
moment at which shes told shes going to be stoned to death, to the moment at which she dies.
Objection 2.1.3.15. The stoning was not carried out in that fashion. Moreover, she was to be given
a drug to dull her senses and prevent her from suffering much.
Reply:
a. Thats not what the Bible says. There is no indication of that in the text.
b. Even that would have been unacceptable, as she did not deserve to be sentenced to death. In fact, in
many cases, she had done nothing wrong, as I explained above. But even in those cases in which she

did something wrong, she surely did not deserve to die for that.
Objection 2.1.3.16. Such punishment was rarely applied, due to strict standards of evidence.
Reply:
a. While it was apparently difficult in practice to legally prove that the conditions specified in the Bible
had been met, and in that sense the standards were strict, on the other hand the condition that the
tokens of her virginity not be found is not nearly good enough as evidence that she wasnt a virgin, so
the standards were bad.
b. Lets consider a hypothetical alternative command that contains good standards of evidence but still
commands that a woman who had sex before being handed over by her father to the man he chose to
gave her to for a certain amount of money, perhaps -, shall be stoned to death if the man in question
did not know in advance that she was not a virgin. Then, the assessments remain as above: Yahweh
should not have commanded that, and the ancient Israelites in a position of power in which they could
decide whether to apply the punishment should not have done so.
c. Lets even consider a hypothetical alternative command that contains good standards of evidence but
still commands that a woman who had sex then consensually married someone who did not know she
wasnt a virgin, be stoned to death. Then, the assessments remain as above: Yahweh should not have
commanded that, and the ancient Israelites in a position of power in which they could decide whether
to apply the punishment should not have done so.
d. The claim of implication that she deserved such punishment is false.
Objection 2.1.3.17. The passages are real, but women could only be legally pledged to a man with
their own consent, even if her fathers consent was also required. So, the women who were stoned
to death in this context were actual adulteresses.
Reply:
I addressed this matter earlier.
Objection 2.1.3.18. Even if those following the command did not know what good would be
achieved by following it, they should have followed the command trusting that Yahweh had some
good reason, as evidenced by the morally good character of Yahweh, which can be seen taking a
look at the Old Testament as a whole. So, they should have concluded that stoning her to death
was required to prevent something worse, or to bring about a greater good in the future.

Reply:
a. Actually, the character of Yahweh, when assessed taking a look at the Old Testament as a whole, is
not that of a morally good person. Its a person who does some morally good things, cares about some
people, but also does very evil deeds, many times. He is not overall any better than people like, say,
Saddam Hussein, Jorge Rafael Videla, Augusto Pinochet, Hafez Al-Assad, Bashar Al-Assad, Muammar
Gaddafi, Alfredo Stroessner, etc., who are or were very bad people, even if plausibly to different
degrees. In fact, hes worse than at least some of those.
The particular command to stone a woman to death if she has sex before being handed over to the man
her father chose as her husband and who did not know she wasnt a virgin and the false moral
implication that a woman in that situation deserves such punishment is an example of Yahwehs very
evil actions, but Im making a general case by assessing many of his actions. And just as we can
properly tell that a brutal dictator is a bad person even if he cares about his family and a few other
people and sometimes behaves in a good way, the same applies to Yahweh.
b. As before, we may consider the analogous case of Hamid. He should not believe that the command
came from a morally perfect creator, and should not follow it.
c. In fact, given how powerful Yahweh was, if the ancient Israelites believed that Yahweh had such
power, they should have reckoned that an entity with that power wouldnt need to torture a woman to
death like that to prevent something worse. For instance, if Yahweh was the ruler of the world and
could effortlessly do pretty much anything he wanted, there is no way Yahweh would have been trying
to save her from a fate worse than what he was commanding for her, like being tortured forever by an
even more powerful being. Nor is there any other reason one could think of that would justify
Yahwehs behavior.
d. Leaving the previous points aside, Yahweh was not suggesting that stoning her to death was required
to save her from something worse, or somehow that there was some ulterior reason that justified such
behavior. Rather, Yahweh directly implied that she deserves to be stoned to death for her behavior, and
that in that way, that evil would be removed from Israel.
But of course, trying to remove evil from Israel does not justify stoning a woman to death for having
sex before marriage and then marrying someone who doesnt know that she did, even if the marriage
was consensual, which may or may not be the case, since the choice was made by her father.

Her behavior may or may not be immoral depending on the case, but surely even in those cases in
which it might have been, it was not so to the extent of showing that shes evil. What would be very
evil would be to stone her to death for any of that. In some other cases, there was no immoral action on
her part, but only on the part of her father who handed her over to another man without her consent,
and on the part of the man who acquired her.
2.1.4. Forbidden marriages.
GWEB:
Leviticus 20:14
If a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burned with
fire, both he and they; that there may be no wickedness among you.
So, Yahweh commands if a man marries a woman and also her mother, the three of them shall be
burned to death.
Moreover, Yahweh tries to justifies that punishment by claiming that those people are wicked, and that
in that way, wickedness is removed from among the ancient Israelites.
In other words, given context, its clear that Yahweh is claiming or implying that all of those people
i.e., the two women and the man, in each case in which such marriages occurred deserve to suffer
such punishment for those actions, namely for engaging in the forbidden marriage. However, that claim
is not true, and was not true in ancient Israel either.
Of course, if one or both of the women did not consent, then those who forced her or them deserved
serious punishment of course, but even granting for the sake of the argument that in cases of force,
those responsible would deserved to be burned to death for rape and sex slavery, it is clear that the
biblical disposition does not punish anyone for rape or sex slavery. That is obvious by the fact that a
lack of consent on the part of one or the two women in not required in order to punish the man, and
more obviously even, by the fact that Yahweh commanded that all three of them be burned to death,
even the two women, and claimed that all of them were wicked.
So, Yahweh is making false moral claims or implications. What Yahweh fails to say is that burning
people to death as a punishment just for entering that type of illegal marriage is horribly immoral.
As for objections, theyre relevantly similar to some of the objections addressed in the previous
subsection, and can be handled in essentially the same manner, so I will not repeat them here.

2.1.5. Priesthood and prostitution.

GWEB:
Leviticus 20:9 The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the
prostitute, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire.
Once again, Yahweh gives the appalling command to burn a woman to death for being a prostitute, if
she is the daughter of a priest.
There is also an implicit claim that she deserves it because she profanes her father. No further
comment is needed here; it should be obvious at this point that Yahweh is a moral monster. [11]
Objections are handled essentially as before.
2.1.6. Men who have sex with men.
GWEB:
Leviticus 20: 13 If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon
them.
Yahweh commands that the death penalty be imposed to man who has sex with another man, and
attempts to justify this by saying that they committed an abomination, implying that they deserved such
punishment, which clearly isnt true.
In this particular case, the method of execution is not specified. However, the execution itself and the
suffering of being arrested and told that they would be killed would be pretty bad.
Moreover, the use of the expression their blood shall be upon them associated it to the cases in which
stoning was specified, and Yahweh did not raise any objections to the use of stoning not that his
actions wouldnt be immoral if a different method to punish the innocent were specified.
Most of the objections are the same as before, and so theyre similarly handled, but Ill consider some
specific objections:
Objection 2.1.6.1. That command was only for cases of rape, not for all cases of homosexual sex
between men.
Reply:
The command is that they both be killed, and the implication is that the both deserve the death penalty.
If this was a command about cases of rape only, the command was at least very unjust towards the

victim, and the implication that he deserved to be killed, false, even assuming that the perpetrator
deserved it.
Objection 2.1.6.2. That command was only for cases of male prostitution, or maybe for some
cases of ritualistic homosexual intercourse, or maybe for only cases in which they have sex on a
womans bed, and not for all cases of homosexual sex between men.
Reply:
Even in those cases, they still didnt deserve to be put to death for that. So, if what this objection claims
is true, the command was still unjust.
Objection 2.1.6.3. The command is justified to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted
diseases. In the case of heterosexual sex, there is also a risk of STD, but is required for
reproduction.
Reply:
a. That is not supported by the text, and those ancient Israelites werent told anything about STD,
anyway, so there is no way they could have understood that potential transmission of STD was the
reason for the punishment.
b. A command to execute men for having sex with other men in order to prevent the spread of such
illnesses would be unjust, anyway. Yahweh the creator of all sexually transmitted illnesses, by the
way, but lets let that pass , who often intervened in the affairs of some of the ancient Israelites, could
have just stopped the illnesses all by himself or refrained from causing them, but that aside -, instead
of punishing innocent people.
c. Yahweh implied that they deserved to be killed, which is not true anyway.
d. There is no ban on heterosexual sex after menopause, even though that does not result in
reproduction.
2.1.7. Inter-species sex.
GWEB:
Leviticus 20
20:15 "'If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; and you shall kill
the animal. 20:16 "'If a woman approaches any animal, and lies down with it, you
shall kill the woman, and the animal: they shall surely be put to death; their blood

shall be upon them.

In addition to the usual unjust commands and false moral claims, in this particular case Yahweh accuses
any non-human animal who has sex with a woman for the crime of having sex with a woman, given
that the expression their blood shall be upon them indicates their deaths are a punishment. In the case
of a man having sex with a non-human animal, that expression is not used, but given the same context,
it seems that the intent is also punitive.
Its not that the woman or the man deserves to be killed, of course objections are handled as in
previous cases, mutatis mutandi, so I will not repeat them here for the sake of brevity -, or that this case
is any worse than the others.
Also, very plausibly, killing the non-human animal in question as a punishment is not as immoral as
killing the human man or woman involved, also as a punishment.
However, this case is curious because Yahweh is implicitly accusing an entity that is not even a moral
agent[12] of acting immorally. There is a similar command in the case of a man having sex with a nonhuman animal (Leviticus 20:15), but in the case of a woman, the confused accusation on the nonhuman animal seems more clear, given the claim their blood should be upon them.
Objection 2.1.7.1. The non-human animals in question were possessed by demons, who deserved
the punishment for having sex with women.
Reply:
a. That is not what the Bible says.
If Yahweh meant to say that this command only applied to possessed non-human animals, he should
have said so in order to be understood.
Instead, the command applies to any woman, and any non-human animal she may choose to have sex
with and which would have sex with her she doesnt have to pick one that is possessed.
b. This command is actually in line with a tendency to fail to realize that some beings arent moral
beings, and punish them; I will provide another example later.
c. If Yahweh wanted to punish demons possessing non-human animals, Yahweh could simply do it
himself, leaving the non-human animals alone.
d. As before, as an analogy, we may consider how Hamid should behave if he were told that a woman
who has sex with a non-human animal deserves to be killed, and if he were commanded to carry out

such a killing. Should he believe that the non-human animals in question would be possessed, and that
she deserves to be killed for that?
Surely, thats not the case.
2.1.8. Evil oxen?
GWEB:
Exodus 21
21:28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull shall surely be stoned, and
its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the bull shall not be held responsible.
21:29 But if the bull had a habit of goring in the past, and it has been testified to its
owner, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed a man or a woman, the bull shall be
stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death. 21:30 If a ransom is laid on him, then
he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid on him. 21:31 Whether it
has gored a son or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to
him. 21:32 If the bull gores a male servant or a female servant, thirty shekels of silver
shall be given to their master, and the ox shall be stoned.
Leaving aside other issues like the injustice that the owner is to be put to death if the bull kills a man
or a woman, but not a male servant or a female servant -, while killing a dangerous animal is
acceptable in such cases, those are clearly not just commands to kill a dangerous ox. Rather, the ox is
punished for his actions by being tortured to death by stoning.
In brief:
i. Killing the ox because hes dangerous would probably have been acceptable in context.
ii. Killing the ox by stoning him to death because he was dangerous would have been
unacceptable. There were clearly more humane ways of killing the ox, which were not more
costly.
iii. Killing the ox by stoning him to death because of a belief that he deserved to be stoned to
death as a punishment was unacceptable behavior, and also involved a serious confusion, like the
failure to realize that oxen are not moral agents.
Yet, commanding that the ox be put to death by stoning was a way of implicitly saying that the ox
deserved it. But he did not deserve it: the ox was just an ox.

So, in addition to cruelty against non-human animals, here Yahweh is implying that oxen who behaved
in that manner were acting evilly, and deserved to be tortured to death for their actions.
Objection 2.1.8.1. The oxen were possessed by demons, who deserved the punishment for
attacking humans.
Reply:
That is not what the Bible says, or how it was interpreted.
If Yahweh meant to say that this command only applied to possessed oxen, he should have said so in
order to be understood.
But he did not, so the command applied to any ox, and even in the story, there is no good reason to
believe that any ox that gored a human was possessed.
Objection 2.1.8.2. There was no implication that the ox deserved it. Stoning the ox to death was
simply the procedure for killing him. Before animal rights activists brought confusion, there was
no moral outrage at killing an animal.
Reply:
a. Even if the specific procedure for stoning humans differed from the procedure for stoning oxen, the
fact remains that stoning in any of its variants was used generally for punishment in many ancient
societies, including ancient Israel. It was not a normal procedure for killing oxen. So, there was an
implicit moral condemnation of the ox for his actions.
b. Its true that there was no moral outrage at killing an ox, and often there is no such outrage today.
But thats not the point, and the morality of killing oxen in other cases is not the matter at hand, either.
In other words, the point Im making here is not based on any claim about the rights of non-human
animals. Rather, the point is about the moral confusion of the Old Testament on this issue. More
precisely, the Old Testament implicitly held that oxen were morally guilty. Thats deeply confused, and
so Yahweh was deeply confused too, or he was deceiving those ancient Israelites.
As a side note, and leaving aside the biblical description for a moment, of course in reality Yahweh
does not exist and this was just a case of some ancient Israelites being confused. But thats another
matter, which exceeds the scope of this essay.
c. That said, on the issue of the rights of non-human animals, that too may properly be used to raise an
objection to Old Testament laws, and one does not need to be an animal rights activist to recognize that

killing an ox by stoning him to death when there are faster, less painful and no more costly methods, is
unacceptable because it inflicts a lot of suffering unnecessarily.
2.1.9. Assorted commands and moral claims or implications.
Just to add some more evidence, I will quote a number of other immoral commands issued and/or false
moral claims or implications made by Yahweh.
GWEB:
Leviticus 20:27 A man or a woman that is a medium, or is a wizard, shall surely be
put to death: they shall stone them with stones. Their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 24:16 He who blasphemes Yahwehs name, he shall surely be put to death.
All the congregation shall certainly stone him. The foreigner as well as the nativeborn, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
Deuteronomy 25:
25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draws near
to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her
hand, and takes him by the secrets; 25:12 then you shall cut off her hand, your eye
shall have no pity.
Those are some examples, but of immoral commands and false moral claims or implications. Many
other examples can easily be found in the Bible.
Objection 2.1.9.1. Youre taking things out of context. You should consider Jesuss life, and see
that he was morally good. Then, if some passages in the Old Testament appear problematic, you
should realize that Yahweh knows better than you do, and that once weve established based on
Jesus life, and/or other actions of Yahweh described in the Old Testament -, that he is morally
good, we can conclude that Yahweh had good reasons for giving those commands.
Reply:
a. The ancient Israelites had no access to the New Testament, so its not the case that they should have
considered Jesuss life.
b. In any case, even counting the New Testament, what is proposed in this objection would be an
improper way of assessing the moral character of Yahweh: essentially, it would amount to arbitrarily

picking some of the actions described in the Bible, conclude from them that a being is morally good,
and then claim that he must have had mysterious reasons for the others. However, just as we can use
our sense of right and wrong to assess that some of his actions were good, we can use it to assess that
some of his actions were profoundly evil.
c. Its important to point out that its not the case that we dont have sufficient information to make an
assessment in the cases of the Old Testament under consideration: assuming the description in the
biblical story as usual -, in some cases we have the commands Yahweh gave, and the reasons used by
him to attempt to justify them, including moral claims or implications that are false, etc.
d. Even considering Jesuss actions, assuming that Jesus is Yahwehs second person and that Jesus
deeds can properly be attributed to Yahweh, Yahweh remains very evil, just as a dictator who tortures
political opponents to death just for speaking out against some of his policies is a morally evil person,
even if he is kind to his children, and even if he is good towards millions of people in the country he
rules over. Hes not maximally morally bad, but still a morally evil person. Many of the actions carried
out by Yahweh, as described in the Old Testament, are no better than those of the hypothetical dictator.
Objection 2.1.9.2. In the case of Yahweh, the interpretation that he is evil even though sometimes
he [alternative objection: and/or his son] did good things, does not make sense, since it would make
no sense for a person to be so good sometimes and so evil some other times. No person would act
like that, unless hes insane, and Yahweh does not appear to be so. So, we should reject the
passages involving evil behavior.
Reply:
a. In the case of humans, there are plenty of people, in the past and today, who do both a lot of evil and
a good number of good deeds, often try to do whats right, and usually believe themselves to be morally
good, or mostly so, even when theyre not.
For instance, many law-enforcement agents, judges, and rulers in all kinds of oppressive regimes,
and/or brutal political and social environments, often justly arrest and/or punish murderers, terrorists,
rapists, bank robbers, thieves in general, con artists, etc.
Sometimes, they impose reasonable penalties not always, of course, but its not difficult to find

examples of crimes in which the penalties are reasonable. Some other times, however, those people
impose immorally severe penalties, or immorally punish people for actions for which they dont
deserve to be punished at all like peaceful political opponents whose only crime is to speak out,
apostates, or adults of the same sex who have consensual sex with each other and are punished for that
-, etc.
Its improbable that all of those people were or are insane.
b. Still, given some of the particular features of Yahwehs behavior, it might be that a human who
would behave in such a manner would be insane, but its not clear that we can extend that assessment
of mental illness to all other intelligent species, or to all non-human intelligent entities with minds very
different from human minds and who dont belong to any species. In particular, I do not know that an
assessment that Yahweh is insane would be warranted, even under that assumption about humans.
c. Actually, if but its a big if - any entity that behaves as Yahweh in the description is insane under
some of the usual concepts of insane, then the proper conclusion based on the description would seem
to be that Yahweh, as described in the Bible, is indeed insane. Whether the kind of insanity in question
would excuse his actions is another matter, but it seems very probable that it would not, since he would
still know what hes doing, acting of his own free will, etc.
But if the description entails that hes insane, then its not the case that he does not appear to be insane,
based on such description, so objection 2.1.7.2 would still fail.
Granted, someone might suggest that in any case, we should reject belief in an insane creator. While I
think we have enough reason to reject all of the descriptions of Yahwehs behavior, I see no good
reason to selectively reject passages in order to avoid a conclusion of insanity and/or that hes not a
good person, that hes a bad person, etc.
d. Leaving aside the biblical story for a moment, the people who wrote the passages of the Old
Testament under consideration had very different moral beliefs and agendas from those writing the
New Testament; further, different writers of the Old Testament had very different beliefs and agendas,
and the same goes for different writers of the New Testament.
An obvious interpretation is that Yahweh and his actions were just imagined by some of the of the

ancient Israelites, and his character reflects the moral beliefs of the writers, including many false ones.
Later, some other people made up different stories about Jesus, which are quite different from each
other, and also considerably different from the stories in the Old Testament, and yet some other people
put together an assortment of different stories, perhaps making the composed character look more alien.
But thats not the matter of this essay.
Objection 2.1.9.3. Yahweh is justified because hes warning his people not to do evil.
Reply:
a. Hes making many false moral claims or implications, and giving many immoral commands. The
actions for which people were to be burned to death, stoned to death, etc., are not actions for which
they deserved anything like that.
b. Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that all of the actions for which people are being
burned to death, stoned to death, etc., were indeed immoral an implausible assumption, but lets let
that pass -, Yahweh would have been warning them not to do those particular immoral actions...by
falsely claiming or implying that those involved in said actions deserved to be stoned to death, burned
to death, etc., for those actions, and by commanding others to carry out far more immoral actions,
namely inflicting such unjust punishments.
c. Moreover, Yahweh falsely claimed or implied that even the non-human animals involved in some of
those actions described above deserved to be killed, stoned to death, etc., and gave the command to
impose those punishments to those non-human animals. Who was he warning, then? Oxen?
The fact is that the code gave by Yahweh to the ancient Israelites is full of evil commands, false moral
claims or implications and other absurd beliefs.
Stepping out of the story for a moment, its unsurprising that the code is so flawed, given that this code
was invented by an ancient group of humans who were born in a society that already endorsed many
brutal practices. But assuming that these were the commands given by Yahweh, he was clearly evil.
And assuming that they werent, then Jesus was mistaken by believing they were a matter that I will
assess later.
2.1.10. The hardness of the hearts of the ancient Israelites.
I addressed the hardness of the hearts objection earlier, but here I will address it in greater detail.

The basic idea behind that objection is that allegedly Jesuss claim in the case of divorce also extends to
other dispositions of the law given by Yahweh to the ancient Israelites, and allegedly that would justify
Yahwehs commands. I will argue that the objection fails.
OEB[1]
Mark 10
2 Presently some Pharisees came up and, to test him, asked: Has a husband the right
to divorce his wife?
3 What direction did Moses give you? Replied Jesus. 4 Moses, they said,
permitted a man to draw up in writing a notice of separation and divorce his wife.
5 It was owing to the hardness of your hearts, said Jesus, that Moses gave you this
direction; 6 but, at the beginning of the Creation, God made them male and female.
7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the man and his wife
will become one; so that they are no longer two, but one. 9 What God himself, then,
has yoked together no one must separate.
GWEB:
Mark 10
10:2 Pharisees came to him testing him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife?10:3 He answered, What did Moses command you? 10:4 They
said, Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her. 10:5
But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment.
10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.* 10:7
For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife, 10:8
and the two will become one flesh,* so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9
What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

This objection, however, fails for at least the following reasons:

a. Yahweh commanded some of the ancient Israelites to engage in those heinous acts of torture to death
by burning or stoning people to death among other atrocities.
The hardness of their hearts would not excuse giving them the order to commit such atrocities.
b. Yahweh clearly implied that the people to be burned, stoned, killed etc., and even the non-human
animals to be punished, etc., deserved to be so punished. In addition to the general context, one can
easily see those implications by looking considering at the wording of some of the commands; for
instance:
GWEB:
Deuteronomy 22:
22:20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the
young lady; 22:21 then they shall bring out the young lady to the door of her father's
house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has
done folly in Israel, to play the prostitute in her father's house: so you shall put away
the evil from the midst of you.
Here, the claim is that they shall stone her because she has done folly in Israel, implicitly saying that
she deserves to be stoned to death because of her actions.
GWEB:
Leviticus 20:27A man or a woman that is a medium, or is a wizard, shall surely be
put to death: they shall stone them with stones. Their blood shall be upon them.
Again, the punishment is not deserved, but again, its implied in context that it is.
GWEB:
Leviticus 21:9 The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the
prostitute, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire.
In this case, there is also an attempted justification for the command: she profanes her father - and
implicitly, thats why she allegedly deserves to burn with fire.

GWEB:
Leviticus 20:16 If a woman approaches any animal, and lies down with it, you
shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood
shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon
them.
As in previous cases, Yahweh not only condemns them to death, but he implies that they deserve to be
put to death. That implication is clear in that context. But its not true. Those people did not deserve to
be put to death.
So, its not only that Yahweh was passing laws because of the hardness of someone's hearts; he was
also making false moral claims or implications.
c. Regardless of whether their hearts were hard or not, Yahweh was far more powerful, and was giving
them a law, sometimes making threats and taking direct action to coerce some people to follow it.
So, he clearly could have made things much better if he had refrained from issuing evil commands and
from making false moral claims or implications.
In fact, by giving evil commands and making false moral claims or implications, he was plausibly
reinforcing their immoral practices and beliefs, and the hardness of their hearts.
d. Jesus himself believed that the law in question was morally acceptable at least in the context of
ancient Israel, going by the biblical story, and as the following passages, among several others, show:
OEB[1]
Luke 16: 16 The law and the prophets sufficed until the time of John. Since then the
good news of the kingdom of God has been told, and everybody has been forcing
their way into it. 17 It would be easier for the heavens and the earth to disappear than
for one stroke of a letter in the law to be lost.
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to do away with the law or the prophets;
I have not come to do away with them, but to complete them. 18 For I tell you, until
the heavens and the earth disappear, not even the smallest letter, nor one stroke of a
letter, will disappear from the law until all is done.

GWEB:
Luke 16:
16:16 The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the Good News of
the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 16:17 But it
is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tiny stroke of a pen in the
law to fall.
Matthew 5
5:17 "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to
destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away
from the law, until all things are accomplished.
Granted, later he introduces changes. But even then, the fact remains that Jesus implied that Old
Testament Law was just, and that following it, at least for the ancient Israelites who lived under Mosaic
Law, was acceptable.
In particular, Jesuss statements implied that if some of those ancient Israelites considered Old
Testament Law to be just, and following Old Testament Law stoned a woman to death for having sex
before marriage and then marrying by choice or not someone who didnt know about it, or burned a
woman to death if she was the daughter of a priest and was a prostitute, or burned a man and two
women to death if he married them both, and they were mother and daughter, then they i.e., the
people inflicting those punishments did not do anything immoral.
So, given that Jesus seemed to be at least reasonably acquainted with Old Testament Law so, its not
the case that he did not know what the Old Testament said about those matters -, then it seems clear that
Jesus had some many false moral beliefs, unless he was lying. I will address the matter of Jesuss
take on Old Testament laws in greater detail later.
2.2. Foreign affairs.
In this subsection, I will assess commands given by Yahweh as rules for warfare.
GWEB:
Deuteronomy 20.
20:10 When you draw near to a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace to it.

20:11 It shall be, if it make you answer of peace, and open to you, then it shall be,
that all the people who are found therein shall become tributary to you, and shall
serve you. 20:12 If it will make no peace with you, but will make war against you,
then you shall besiege it: 20:13 and when Yahweh your God delivers it into your
hand, you shall strike every male of it with the edge of the sword: 20:14 but the
women, and the little ones, and the livestock, and all that is in the city, even all its
spoil, you shall take for a prey to yourself; and you shall eat the spoil of your
enemies, which Yahweh your God has given you. 20:15 Thus you shall do to all the
cities which are very far off from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.
20:16 But of the cities of these peoples, that Yahweh your God gives you for an
inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes; 20:17 but you shall utterly
destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the
Hivite, and the Jebusite; as Yahweh your God has commanded you; 20:18 that they
not teach you to do after all their abominations, which they have done to their gods;
so would you sin against Yahweh your God.
Yahweh classifies other tribes in two groups, so lets consider the rules for different types of cities:
2.2.1. Distant cities.
In the case of cities that are far off from the place where those ancient Israelites lived, Yahweh says that
before attacking the city, the Israelite forces shall proclaim peace.
However, hes clearly talking about an ultimatum, since if the city (presumably the government)
accepts this peace, then all of its inhabitants became forced laborers. But if the government refuses to
surrender, those ancient Israelite forces attack and when they win somehow assisted by Yahweh,
apparently -, then all adult males are in the city are killed, and women and children are taken as
plunder. Then, those women would be taken as wives if the raiders so choose. In other words, they
would become sex slaves, and be repeatedly raped, all in accordance to Old Testament Law.
Lets take a look at this from the perspective of the inhabitants of one of those cities: a foreign force
from a distant land approaches their city, and threatens to massacre men and take women and children
as slaves if their leaders do not surrender and become servants. Surely, those people would be justified
in assessing that the attackers were behaving unjustly and rightly so.

So, lets say that the government of the city does not surrender to the aggressor. Then, Yahwehs
command is to kill all adult men, regardless of whether they fought to defend their city, their loved
ones, etc., and to take women and children as plunder.
Its clear that Yahwehs behavior is appalling. Yahweh here commands mass murder and enslavement
of people who did not deserve to be killed or enslaved, including the enslavement of children. So, we
have even more evidence about Yahwehs wickedness.
Also, it would be immoral to follow the commands given by Yahweh, at least as long as there is no
further reason that would justify it. For instance, a justification might be a credible threat by Yahweh to
torture all of the inhabitants of the city for eternity in case the ancient Israelites in that situation fail to
attack, but annihilate them when they die if the ancient Israelites in question attack. In that case, an
attack may be justified, but not a willing attack, but rather, an attack to prevent more evil on the part of
the moral monster Yahweh.
But clearly, this is not the situation were talking about. Nor is there any alternative justification. All
those attackers had was an alleged commandment by a powerful entity, which in most cases, they
havent even witnessed, even under the assumption of the existence of Yahweh, etc.. And even
assuming that some of those attackers had witnessed some of Yahwehs displays of power, a display of
power is not an indication of moral goodness, or anything like that. Those who watched those displays
of power had been commanded by a powerful entity to attack a city without provocation, kill all men,
take women and children as slaves, steal property, and so on. That might reduce their degree of
responsibility to some extent, but would not excuse their actions.
Objection 2.2.1.1. All other tribes in that area had even worse rules of war, or at least similarly
bad. This was an improvement over previous laws.
Reply:
Even if that were true, that would not excuse Yahwehs commands to engage in evil behavior.
Objection 2.2.1.2. Men who didnt fight were to be spared.
Reply:
a. The Bible does not say so. It says all of them are to be killed. Women, on the other hand, would be
taken as plunder.
b. Even if some men were to be spared, killing all men who fought to defend their community against

an attacker and who were later captured or surrendered would be morally atrocious.
c. Even if prisoners would also to be spared and taken as slaves, attacking a city in order to take the
female population as slaves that they would rape leaving aside taking male slaves, stealing goods, etc.
would be morally abhorrent as well.
Objection 2.2.1.3. Women were not to be raped.
Reply:
Thats not true. While there was no commandment to rape in case an attack took place, those attackers
who would feel like raping would be allowed to do so, and essentially that was one of the purposes of
taking women as plunder in the first place.
On that note, this is what the text says:
GWEB:
Deuteronomy 21.
21:10 When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God
delivers them into your hands, and you carry them away captive, 21:11 and see
among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire to her, and would take
her to you as wife; 21:12 then you shall bring her home to your house; and she shall
shave her head, and pare her nails; 21:13 and she shall put the clothing of her
captivity from off her, and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her
mother a full month: and after that you shall go in to her, and be her husband, and she
shall be your wife. 21:14 It shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let
her go where she will; but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not deal
with her as a slave, because you have humbled her.
So, the attacker was allowed to take the woman as a wife - i. e., a sex slave, since her consent was not
required. In that case, the victim would be given a month to mourn the death of her father and her
mother if the mother was also killed by Israelite forces, it seems -, and after that he would go into
her (in other words, he would rape her), and make her his wife.
On the other hand, if the rapist later does not like her anymore, he would let her go free instead of
selling her as a slave, because he humbled her.
This legal disposition would apply in a number of war scenarios, including the attacks on distant cities

regulated in the previous chapter of Deuteronomy, and which Im commenting on.

Granted, some of the women might be in a sense willing to become husbands of the attackers. For
instance, there is such thing as Stockholm Syndrome after all. But that would not excuse his behavior,
nor was it required. Her consent was simply not an issue.
Objection 2.2.1.4. Yahweh is sovereign, so all territories belong to him. Those defending the city
were not defending what was theirs, since Yahweh gave some of the ancient Israelites the right to
attack. Also, the women were created by Yahweh. He has the right to give them as wives to
whomever he chooses, regardless of their consent.
Reply:
a. Even if Yahweh created them all, that would not justify enslaving any group of people living in
distant cities and whom the ancient Israelite leaders just choose to attack. Nor would it justify giving
women to their rapists, allowing such acts of rape, sex slavery, etc., promoting the belief that such
behaviors were morally acceptable, and so on.
So, Yahweh was behaving immorally.
b. The defenders had no contact with Yahweh, no reason to believe that he was the creator of
everything, and no knowledge that he had made an alliance with the invaders. Even if they had known,
of course that would not would have justified the attacks, their enslavement, etc., but perhaps the fact
that the victims of Yahweh and his followers were defending themselves, their families, their property,
etc., and did not know that they were up against Yahweh, might make the injustice of the attack more
clear to some potential readers.
c. The aggressors i.e., those ancient Israelites who took part in an attack under these rules in most
cases hadnt witnessed Yahwehs feats, either. They only had a claim that Yahweh existed and
commanded that. Thats not different from what people from many other tribes would have, with regard
to claims about other entities with superhuman powers. Now, surely if some distant tribe had sent
troops to ancient Israelite territory with the objective of reducing people to servitude or else plunder
their cities, kill all the men and take women and children as slaves, etc., because their religious
tradition said that was okay, that would have been immoral. The similar actions of the ancient Israelites
who had the claim that Yahweh authorized it were similarly immoral.
d. Furthermore, those ancient Israelites who witnessed Yahwehs feats should not have considered him

morally good. He was very powerful, no doubt, but thats not an indication of moral goodness. And his
behavior clearly showed he wasnt good, overall. In fact, it showed that he was a moral monster.
e. Lets consider how those women plausibly felt a matter those ancient Israelites should have
pondered too, when they were ordered to attack -: They witnessed an attack on their city, the plunder
and destruction of everything they knew in their lives, the slaughter of their sons by foreign raiders, and
then they had to endure that those raiders take them and their daughters by force as slaves, and if the
raiders so choose - marry them regardless of consent, and rape them for as long as the rapists saw fit.
Inflicting all of that suffering was despicable, on the part of Yahweh and on the part of Yahweh's
followers.
f. Similarly, those children witnessed an attack on their city, the plunder and destruction of everything
they knew, the slaughter of their fathers, older brothers, etc., by foreign raiders, and the enslavement of
their mothers, sisters, young brothers, etc., and then they too were taken as slaves.
So, its apparent that the attackers should not have engaged those behaviors.
Objection 2.2.1.5. Yahweh didnt command such behavior. He just permitted it in case that the
ancient Israelite leaders decided to attack a city.
Reply:
Yahweh tells them what to do in case they decide to attack, like killing all of the men and taking the
women and children as plunder if the city does not surrender, so it is a command for those in such
situations.
But in any case, authorizing those immoral actions and promoting the belief that they were not
immoral, is morally unjustified. Yahweh could have easily banned them. Also, in any case, those
ancient Israelites should not have attacked those cities just because Yahweh claimed to authorize them.
Authorization from a powerful being, creator or otherwise, does not justify inflicting horrendous
suffering on the innocent.
Objection 2.2.1.6. Those cities had attacked Israel before.
Reply:
a. Thats not what the Bible says; the language clearly tells otherwise. Those were distant cities, not
previous aggressors.
b. Even if that were true (but the text does not support that), it would still not justify the behavior

described above. For instance, to take women as sex slaves would still be unacceptable.
Objection 2.2.1.7. Those children were not taken as slaves but adopted, and the women were
taken as wives.
Reply:
a. Since their consent was not required they were part of the plunder , if those Israelite attackers
took those women as wives against their will, they raped them, and also enslaved them, since they had
to obey their husbands. On the other hand, if they werent taken as wives, they were still enslaved.
Either way, they were enslaved.
b. There is no textual indication that the children were adopted. In fact, they were to be taken as
plunder too.
Objection 2.2.1.8. The condition of slaves in ancient Israel was not as bad as the condition of
slaves in any of the neighboring tribes.
Reply:
That would need to be argued for. Even if, in some other tribes, slaves were overall worse off, that does
not entail that in all other tribes in the region, slaves were overall worse off. But in any case, thats
beside the point. Many of the actions of the ancient Israelite attackers, like the killing of all men, and
the rape of women, would be morally unacceptable, regardless of the conditions of slaves elsewhere.
Objection 2.2.1.9. Yahweh allowed such behaviors to achieve a greater good, namely to fulfill his
plan of salvation.
Reply:
a. His plans were regularly appalling, and in any case, there is no need to massacre and enslave all
those people to save others. Yahweh is enormously powerful, and can pretty much effortlessly run
things as he chooses.
b. In any event, it should be clear that those ancient Israelites should have refrained from committing
those actions. Lets once again consider what Hamid should do if he were told that a powerful being is
allowing such behavior.
So, they should have rejected the authorization given by Yahweh, and rejected the claim that he was
morally good.
2.2.2. Dealing with some neighbors.

In the case of the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite,
Yahwehs command is to kill them all.
Again, we may consider how the people of those cities felt when those ancient Israelite raiders entered
their homes, slaughtered their children, siblings, parents, etc., before slaughtering them too. The
behavior of the attackers was plain evil.
Objection 2.2.2.1. The adults were guilty of abominations in their worshiping of their gods.[13]
They deserved to be killed. Additionally, killing them was needed because otherwise most of the
ancient Israelites would have become worshipers of false deities as well.
Reply:
a. The Old Testament claims that the inhabitants of those cities committed abominations. But none of
those ancient Israelites had anything remotely like conclusive evidence that all of the adults had
committed abominations. What those ancient Israelites had, in most cases, was a claim made by
someone else, if that. So, even if the targeted adults actually deserved to be killed, those ancient
Israelites didnt know that, and should not have followed the commands.
As before, one may adjust Hamids analogy to make a parallel.
b. Even if the ancient Israelites who participated in an attack of that sort had had good reasons to
believe that the adults deserved the death penalty for some of their actions, the attackers should have
realized that the slaughter of young children was not acceptable, since young children were neither
guilty nor a threat. Of course, in some cases, they may well have realized that, but did it anyway.
c. The claim that the killings were needed because otherwise most of the ancient Israelites would have
become worshipers of false deities as well is clearly untenable under the assumption that Yahweh exists
and the other deities do not. Those other deities did not exist, so they wouldnt be able to do anything to
persuade any of the ancient Israelites that they did exist, whereas Yahweh could show his power
whenever he chose.
Indeed, Yahweh could have even converted the other tribes, since they worshiped non-existent beings,
whereas Yahweh is a real immensely powerful entity of course, assuming the description in the story
for the sake of the argument; Im not suggesting that Yahweh actually exists.
Objection 2.2.2.2. The adults were guilty of abominations in their worshiping of their gods, who
were actually demons. So, those adults deserved to be killed. Additionally, killing them was

needed because otherwise most of the ancient Israelites would have become worshipers of
demons as well. While Yahweh could have used his power to prevent those demons from
contacting any humans, then show his powers to the other tribes, etc., that would have interfered
with the free will of the demons and/or the free will of the members of the other tribes.
Reply:
a. Thats not even suggested in the text, and there would have been no good reason for those ancient
Israelites to suspect that that was the case.
b. As explained above, the Old Testament claims that the inhabitants of those cities committed
abominations. But the ancient Israelites did not have anything remotely like conclusive evidence that
all of the adults had committed abominations. So, even if the targeted adults actually deserved to be
killed, the ancient Israelites who took part in the attack didnt know that, and should not have followed
the commands.
As before, one may adjust Hamids analogy to make a parallel.
c. Moreover, if most people in those other tribes were worshiping entities with superhuman powers that
gave immoral commands, etc., their situation seems similar to that of the ancient Israelites who
worshiped Yahweh. Those demons may have been powerful and evil, but those are also two of
Yahwehs properties, as evidenced by the biblical descriptions.
d. Even if the ancient Israelites who participated in an attack of that sort had had good reasons to
believe that the adults deserved the death penalty for some actions, the attackers should have realized
that the slaughter of young children was not acceptable, since young children were neither guilty nor a
threat.
e. Respecting the free will of the demons does not justify allowing them to roam around doing all sorts
of evil deeds, just as we dont allow murderers or rapists to do as they please in order to respect their
free will. And Yahweh could have effortlessly stopped any demons.
Objection 2.2.2.3. Not all of the people in those cities were to be killed. Even if that part of the
text says they were, Joshua 6 shows that a prostitute who hid Israelite spies and thus helped the
Israelite attackers destroy her city and kill nearly everyone, was spared.
Reply:
Even if a few traitors who helped the attackers were to be spared, that does not justify the slaughter of

everyone else, including children, etc.

Objection 2.2.2.4. There may have been exceptions for other people, apart from traitors. Maybe
those who repented and converted were spared.
Reply:
There is no textual evidence of that, and in fact the targets of the attack are not told to repent or convert,
but in any case, that still would not justify the behavior of the attackers, the slaughter of young
children, etc.
Objection 2.2.2.5. Young children who were killed went to Heaven, so thats not a problem.
Reply:
a. The ancient Israelites in question were never told about Heaven. They did not believe that those
children were going to Heaven. Nor did they have any good reasons to believe so, or that there was any
justification for the killing.
b. The children in question didnt just move from existence on Earth to existence in Heaven painlessly.
Rather, many of them died after horrible suffering, which wouldnt be justified even if they went to
Heaven later. If Yahweh wanted to place them in Heaven, he could just zap them without suffering, so
that they would immediately be transported to Heaven.
c. Lets take a look at the situation:
An army enters a city and slaughters the entire population, adults and children, men and women,
young and old. Many of the inhabitants had to see their children, parents, siblings, espouses, etc.,
being slaughtered before their eyes, before they too were killed.
The attackers do that based merely on the commands they find in a traditional stories and/or legal
dispositions, in many cases written before the people theyre killing were even born, or merely on
the basis of a direct command by a powerful entity.
It should be obvious that the behavior of the attackers was very evil, unless again there was a sufficient
threat in case of disobedience, like a credible threat from the most powerful being stating that unless
the inhabitants of the city are slaughtered, he will torture all of them forever. But that was not the case,
and even in such a case, those receiving the command should not believe that the entity making the
threat is morally good. Nor is there any indication of another threat that would justify either attacking
those cities and killing everyone, or believing that the commands to do so were the commands of a

morally good ruler of the world.

Objection 2.2.2.6. Young children were knocked unconscious by Yahweh, so none of them
suffered.
Reply:
There is no suggestion in the text that Yahweh would do that every time that some ancient Israelites
followed his command and killed everyone in a city.
Given that, those ancient Israelites had no good reason to suspect that that would happen.
As I explained earlier, those ancient Israelites ought to have disobeyed even an order to kill even all of
the adults, but even if we leave that aside and we assume for the sake of the argument that it would not
have been unacceptable for them to follow the order to kill everyone if they had had conclusive
evidence that young children would be knocked unconscious by Yahweh beforehand, the fact is that
they had nothing remotely like conclusive evidence, and so they ought to have disobeyed as well, given
that there was no other justification, either.
Objection 2.2.2.7. The ancient Israelites who follow Yahwehs orders, every time, had some
justification that we dont know about.
Reply:
a. The biblical account attempts to portray the ancient Israelites who follow Yahwehs orders in a
positive light, so one would expect that they would have included a reference to a justification if they
had them. So, based on that, the claim made in this objection seems very implausible.
b. Moreover, even leaving a. aside, after carefully considering the matter, it is clear that no excuse
justified either their actions and the actions of Yahwehs.
Perhaps, a sufficiently clear threat by Yahweh to inflict far worse punishment on their innocent victims
if those ancient Israelites failed to follow their commands might have justified their actions but that
isnt the case under consideration -, but surely not Yahwehs actions. And given his amount of power
he is essentially the ruler of the world, and can do as he pleases -, it seems clear that there was no
justification for his behavior.
Nor is there any other justification for their behavior. They were just engaging in immoral actions. It
would not be a reasonable interpretation of the story described in the Bible to say that there were some
mysterious reasons justifying the behavior of those obeying Yahweh in all those cases.

Objection 2.2.2.8. Those passages were not to be taken literally.

Reply:
There is no textual indication of that. In fact, it seems clear in context that those are rules for waging
war, and so without any indication to the contrary, plausibly the literal interpretation should be regarded
as the correct one.
Objection 2.2.2.9. The passages regulating war in an immoral fashion are not actual commands
from Yahweh. Jesus protected children. How could the same entity command the ancient
Israelites to slaughter children like that?
Reply:
a. For that matter, one might ask how could the same entity kill children horribly with viruses, bacteria,
and all sorts of parasites. It would be an entity with a mind very different from that of normal humans.
b. Even leaving aside viruses, etc., that infect children regularly, Yahweh directly targeted Davids son
in order to punish his father, slaughtered children in Egypt, specifically ordered the slaughter of
everyone in many cities, including children (e. g., 1 Samuel 15: 3, Now go and strike Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have, and dont spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.), and generally engaged in moral atrocities all around. So,
there is nothing particularly surprising about his behavior here.
On that note, an ancient Israelite with access to the stories we find in the Old Testament should not
have found the command to slaughter children to be unusual for Yahweh. He or she should have
rejected the claim that Yahweh was morally good, of course.
c. That aside, it is true that, if one considers Jesuss behavior as well as Yahwehs behavior in the Old
Testament, and one assumes theyre the same entity, then some of his actions would seem more than
odd for a normal human, or an entity with a similar mind. In fact, a normal human would not be a
monster like Yahweh. But there are even humans who engage in moral atrocities, while at the same
time believe that theyre doing the right thing. Some other times, they actually do the right thing. Many
religious fanatics of different religions are examples of that. Perhaps, even they would not go as far as
Yahweh would go. But were talking about an entity who is three persons (whatever that means), and
whose first and third person are not human. Such an entity may well have a mind vastly different from
that of normal human beings. At least, the story depicts that, and considerations about human

psychology are not a significant objection to the straightforward interpretation of the story.
Objection 2.2.2.10. The passages regulating war in an immoral fashion are not commands from
Yahweh. We should check whether Old Testament passages come from Yahweh in light of Jesuss
words and actions.
Reply:
I will address some issues about Jesus later, but here I will point out that even that objection would not
apply to the situation of an ancient Israelite, who had no access to the New Testament, and who should
have concluded that Yahweh was morally evil based on the accounts available to them aside from the
question of what they would have concluded about Yahwehs existence, in case they didnt witness any
of his actions.
3. Some events described in the Old Testament.
In this subsection, I will address accounts of events described in the Old Testament, involving, among
others, commands and/or direct action by Yahweh, and/or approval by Yahweh of the actions of some
of the ancient Israelites.
3.1. The Flood.
The Flood account (Genesis 6-9) was interpreted literally by nearly all Christian denominations and
nearly all Christians, and for nearly all of the time Christianity has existed. Nowadays, the situation has
changed, and many, perhaps most Christians reject such interpretation, and favor either a localized
flood, or no flood at all. I will consider first the Flood as described in the Bible, and then deal with
other interpretations when assessing objections.
So, according to the Bible, Yahweh flooded the world and killed everyone, except for those on board
the ark. That was morally unacceptable, for a number of reasons. I will focus on one of them, which is
sufficient to establish this point: young children.
Since Yahweh killed everyone in the world except for those on board the Ark, its clear that that
included many young children. But Yahweh flooded everything with massive rains, rather than, say,
zapping everyone so that they instantly die. Their deaths, in many cases, would not have been
immediate, but would have come after different amounts of suffering, from a little to a lot.
So, some of those children would have seen their parents or siblings suffer and then die, would have
tried to breathe and stay afloat only to fail and succumb, etc.; in short, it would have been horrendous

for them. Yet, they did not deserve such suffering.

Even if Yahweh had been justified in doing that to the rest of the people who endured his actions, and
even if he had been justified in killing those young children (I reckon that neither of the two is true, but
leaving that aside), the fact would remain that the suffering he inflicted on young children was
completely unnecessary to achieve that goal, and so its clear that such behavior was immoral.
Objection 3.1.1. The flood was local, not global. It covered a large area in the Near East, but
surely not the world.
Reply:
If that is the case, then Yahweh immorally inflicted a lot of pointless suffering on a smaller number of
young children. But thats still immoral behavior on his part, and actually very immoral, given what it
consisted in.
Objection 3.1.2. There were no young children in the affected area.
Reply:
Its implicit in the text that there were human tribes in the affected area, and given basic facts about
human behavior, the reasonable conclusion assuming that the flood in question happened is that almost
certainly there were many young children.
Objection 3.1.3. Yahweh didnt make the young children in question suffer. They were just
zapped into Heaven.
Reply:
There is no textual support for that. The text clearly specified flooding by means of massive rains as the
method of killing, making no exceptions beyond the Ark. Given that method, the reasonable conclusion
assuming that the flood in question happened either globally or even locally is that almost certainly,
at least some children suffered horribly because of that.
Objection 3.1.4. Yahweh didnt make the young children in question suffer. Yahweh made them
unconscious so that they wouldnt suffer.
Reply:
There is no textual support for that, even though the Flood account seems intent on giving a rather
detailed account of Yahwehs involvement in those events, and even though that would have partially
excused some of Yahwehs behavior, making them particularly relevant because of that.

So, this interpretation appears quite improbable.

Objection 3.1.5. Those children suffered as a means of punishing the parents and/or older
siblings, who witnessed their suffering. Whenever the parents/older siblings died first, young
children were just zapped into heaven, or alternatively young children always died first.
Reply:
a. There is no textual support for the view that some of the children were zapped into heaven. The text
clearly specified flooding by means of massive rains as the method of killing.
b. While young children would die first in most cases, its extremely improbable that that would always
be the case.
c. In any event, it would be immoral to inflict such suffering in young children as a means of making
their parents suffer, regardless of how evil their parents may have been, or how much suffering they
may have deserved.
Objection 3.1.6. Many young children suffer horribly as a result of viruses, bacteria, parasitic
worms that burrow through their eyes, etc. If the objection to the Flood based on the suffering of
children were successful, for that matter an argument from suffering would be successful against
a much broader range of theistic views than Christianity.
Reply.
Actually, I hold that an argument from suffering does succeed, and those examples may properly be
used as part of it.
However, some philosophers may suggest that suffering caused as a result of the general laws of
nature is justified, or something along those lines.
My position is that such a reply does not succeed, but there is no need to make that claim or take a
stance on that in this context. Its enough for me to assess that specifically inflicting such suffering by a
flood is immoral.
Objection 3.1.7. The Flood never happened, locally or globally.
Reply:
While that avoids a moral objection to Christianity based on the Flood account, its in conflict with the
account in Genesis, plus other passages of the Old Testament and New Testament that refer to the Flood
account (Isaiah 54:9, Hebrews 11:7, 2 Peter 2:4-5) and implicitly hold that Yahweh did not do anything

immoral.
Objection 3.1.8. The Flood never happened, locally or globally. However, the passages describing
it ought not to be rejected, but rather interpreted in a non-literal way. They were meant to teach
moral lessons, not history.
Reply:
a. The account is taken literally in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:7, 2 Peter 2:4-5).
b. In any case, the story is one that depicts Yahweh behaving immorally, while the Bible implies, given
context, that his behavior is morally acceptable. So, if it was meant to teach moral lessons, it would
have taught mistaken moral lessons.
3.2. Egypt.
In this subsection, I will assess some of the events described in the Book of Exodus.
At that time, the ancient Israelites were slaves in Egypt as usual, according to the story -, so Yahweh
decided to set them free. That alone wouldnt be a problem, but the methods are, as we shall see:
GWEB:
Exodus 4.
4:1 Moses answered, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor listen to my voice;
for they will say, Yahweh has not appeared to you.' 4:2 Yahweh said to him, What
is that in your hand? He said, A rod. 4:3 He said, Throw it on the ground. He
threw it on the ground, and it became a snake; and Moses ran away from it. 4:4
Yahweh said to Moses, Put forth your hand, and take it by the tail. He put forth his
hand, and laid hold of it, and it became a rod in his hand. 4:5 That they may believe
that Yahweh, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob, has appeared to you. 4:6 Yahweh said furthermore to him, Now put
your hand inside your cloak. He put his hand inside his cloak, and when he took it
out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow. 4:7 He said, Put your hand
inside your cloak again. He put his hand inside his cloak again, and when he took it
out of his cloak, behold, it had turned again as his other flesh. 4:8 "It will happen, if
they will neither believe you nor listen to the voice of the first sign, that they will
believe the voice of the latter sign. 4:9 It will happen, if they will not believe even

these two signs, neither listen to your voice, that you shall take of the water of the
river, and pour it on the dry land. The water which you take out of the river will
become blood on the dry land."
So, Yahweh was willing to provide evidence of the fact that - at the very least - that a being with
superhuman powers was involved, and indeed on Mosess side. That plausibly would have convinced
Pharaoh to let those ancient Israelites go.
However, Yahweh interfered also by altering Pharaohs minds, so that he would not let them go:
GWEB[1]
Exodus 4.
4:21 Yahweh said to Moses, "When you go back into Egypt, see that you do before
Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your hand, but I will harden his heart and
he will not let the people go. 4:22 You shall tell Pharaoh, Thus says Yahweh, Israel is
my son, my firstborn, 4:23 and I have said to you, Let my son go, that he may serve
me; and you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.'"
GWEB:
Exodus 7.
7:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron
your brother shall be your prophet. 7:2 You shall speak all that I command you; and
Aaron your brother shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of
his land. 7:3 I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in
the land of Egypt. 7:4 But Pharaoh will not listen to you, and I will lay my hand on
Egypt, and bring forth my armies, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of
Egypt by great judgments. 7:5 The Egyptians shall know that I am Yahweh, when I
stretch forth my hand on Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among
them."
After Mosess display of power, which surpassed those of Egyptian sorcerers, Pharaoh refused to let
those ancient Israelites go, so Yahweh said:
GWEB:
Exodus 7. 14Yahweh said to Moses, Pharaohs heart is stubborn. He refuses to let

the people go.

Its not surprising that Pharaoh was stubborn, given that Yahweh was using his powers to harden
Pharaohs heart, but thats Yahwehs fault.
So, anyway, Yahweh kept using his powers in an appalling manner:
GWEB:
Exodus 7.
7:20 Moses and Aaron did so, as Yahweh commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and
struck the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his
servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. 7:21 The fish
that were in the river died; and the river became foul, and the Egyptians couldn't
drink water from the river; and the blood was throughout all the land of Egypt. 7:22
The magicians of Egypt did in like manner with their enchantments; and Pharaoh's
heart was hardened, and he didn't listen to them; as Yahweh had spoken. 7:23 Pharaoh
turned and went into his house, neither did he lay even this to heart. 7:24 All the
Egyptians dug around the river for water to drink; for they couldn't drink of the water
of the river. 7:25 Seven days were fulfilled, after Yahweh had struck the river.
Making the water from the river undrinkable would inflict considerable suffering on the Egyptian
population at large, including of course young children. But there was no need for that, since Yahweh
could have simply forced Pharaoh, for example by means of making threats of by means of directly
altering Pharaohs mind.
Now, given all of the options available to Yahweh, its debatable whether making threats or directly
altering Pharaohs mind so that he would let the slaves go would have been morally acceptable, but at
least its clear that the course of action Yahweh chooses was morally unacceptable.
An analogous case would be as follows: lets say that a brutal, murderous dictator has taken thousands
of people as slaves from a neighboring country. In order to set them free, we have at least the following
three options:
i. We can use a drug that will make the dictator temporarily obedient to our commands, and then
tell him to set the slaves free. Thats guaranteed to work. Then, we can protect the former slaves
in their country of origin by protecting that country from attack.

ii. We can inflict pain and suffering on the dictator and/or some of his accomplices, in order to
force his hand, but without making innocent people suffer, other than perhaps indirectly if, say,
their family members are some of the ones we target. That will also work.
iii. We can inflict pain and suffering on the population of the country ruled by the dictator,
including young children, for a long time. That is also guaranteed to work eventually.
Also, we may assume that, in all cases, we can easily defeat any kind of retaliation from the dictator or
from anyone else. Also, there are no other entities with greater power than ours making any kind of
threats. Given that, it seems pretty clear that it would be immoral to pick option iii.
But Yahweh picked an option that would be essentially equivalent to iii, if it weren't for the fact that
Yahweh himself hardened Pharaohs heart, which makes Yahweh's actions even worse.
Granted, Yahweh had even more options, so it might be debatable whether even something like i. or ii.
would have been acceptable for someone in his position, but the point here is that at least he had those
three options, and that given that he had those three options, picking something like iii. or even worse
was morally unacceptable, since it inflicts a lot of suffering on beings that do not deserve to be harmed
in that fashion or at all while some of the alternatives would achieve the intended goal as well,
without that suffering.
Objection 3.2.1. Yahweh didnt actually altered Pharaohs mind. That was a figurative way of
saying that Pharaoh was unreasonably unyielding.
Reply:
We may grant for the sake of the argument that Pharaoh's mind was not deliberately altered by Yahweh,
and Yahweh's option is similar to iii. - while Yahweh had plenty more options at his disposal. There was
no need to inflict such horrific suffering on the innocent. Yahweh's behavior is still abominable.
Objection 3.2.2. Yahweh didnt actually altered Pharaohs mind. That was a figurative way of
saying that Pharaoh was unreasonably unyielding. Also, Yahweh did not altered Pharaohs mind
directly to respect his freedom of choice, so Yahweh wouldnt choose anything like i. above.
Reply:
Actually, making threats, bringing suffering upon many people, etc., were means of coercing Pharaoh.
His choice to let those ancient Israelites go was surely not free. Its not that there is a problem with
coercing evil people and force them to let the innocent alone (within limits), but the point is that

Yahweh wasnt respecting Pharaohs freedom; rather, it was taking it away.

But regardless, given Yahwehs huge power, there was always the option of targeting Pharaoh and his
accomplices with accuracy, instead of hitting the innocent too with mostly indiscriminate weapons. As
before, its debatable whether that alternative would have been acceptable, given all of the means
available to Yahweh, but what is clear that given that at least that alternative was available, the course
of action that Yahweh took was not morally acceptable not even close to being acceptable.
Objection 3.2.3. Yahweh did not cause any suffering on any young children. All young children
were either zapped into Heaven immediately without suffering, or knocked unconscious so that
they would not suffer.
Reply:
There is not textual evidence of that. In fact, some of Yahweh's actions were indiscriminately
destructive, causing suffering to Egyptians in general. Given the specific details of some of those
accounts, one would have expected that something as extraordinary as all children being made
unconscious or dead without suffering would have been specified. It was not.
Moreover, some of those attacks also inflicted suffering on Egyptians who were slaves, oppressed, etc.
- not just on Pharaoh and/or his accomplices.
Objection 3.2.4. The passages were not meant to be taken literally. That never happened.
Reply:
a. There seems to be no good textual support for that, and apparently they usually if not always were
taken literally in ancient Israel, by those familiar with the text.
b. The New Testament supports the literal interpretation as well, since the massacre of the firstborn and
other events from Exodus are mentioned in Hebrews 11, and the writer of Hebrews 11 clearly implies
that was a real example of past events. I will address that in greater detail later.
Objection 3.2.5. The passages were not true. That never happened.
Reply:
That would seem to require leaving aside part of the New Testament as well, since the New Testament
refers to some the events in Egypt depicted in the Old Testament (Acts 7, Acts 13, Romans 9, Hebrews
3, Hebrews 8, Hebrews 11, etc.), without ever suggesting that much of the Old Testament description
was false. I will address the connections between the Old Testament including the Flood and some of

the other parts Im specifically addressing and the New Testament in greater detail later.
3.3. Canaan.
Joshua 6-11 describes the war waged by some ancient Israelites against a number of other tribes. The
Israelite human leader is Joshua, who in turn takes orders from his boss, Yahweh.
So, Joshua 6 describes an attack on Jericho, as ordered by Yahweh. According to the description, no
one is spared in that attack and that includes men, women, children, etc., no matter whether theyre
too young to be guilty of anything with the following exceptions: a woman called Rahab and
anyone in her house are to be spared, because she treacherously protected some Israelite spies. But
other than that, everyone is slaughtered.
For example:
GWEB:
Joshua 6
6:20 So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets. It happened, when the
people heard the sound of the trumpet, that the people shouted with a great shout, and
the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight
before him, and they took the city. 6:21 They utterly destroyed all that was in the city,
both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and donkey, with the
edge of the sword. 6:22 Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land, "Go
into the prostitute's house, and bring out from there the woman and all that she has, as
you swore to her." 6:23 The young men who were spies went in, and brought out
Rahab with her father, her mother, her brothers, and all that she had. They also
brought out all her relatives, and they set them outside of the camp of Israel. 6:24
They burnt the city with fire, and all that was in it. Only they put the silver, the gold,
and the vessels of brass and of iron into the treasury of Yahweh's house. 6:25 But
Rahab the prostitute, her father's household, and all that she had, Joshua saved alive.
She lived in the midst of Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers, whom
Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
The behavior of the attackers is clearly morally abhorrent, and so is that of Rahab. Her guilt would be
mitigated or even eliminated if she had been tortured, or credibly threatened, etc., but that does not

seem to be a probable interpretation, given that she's being rewarded for her treacherous behavior,
which resulted in the slaughter of all of the other inhabitants of the city, including non-combatant
adults, prisoners of war, and all children, and the infliction of horrible suffering on the innocent as
they were being hacked and stabbed to death, etc. - by Joshua and his accomplices.
Moreover, the text says that Yahweh was backing Joshua, and later Yahweh directly told Joshua to
attack another Canaanite city, Ai:
GWEB:
Joshua 8
8:1 Yahweh said to Joshua, Don't be afraid, neither be dismayed: take all the people
of war with you, and arise, go up to Ai; behold, I have given into your hand the king
of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land; 8:2 You shall do to Ai and her king as
you did to Jericho and her king: only its spoil, and its livestock, you shall take for a
prey to yourselves: set you an ambush for the city behind it.
So, clearly Yahweh approved of the massacre of the people of Jericho. He commanded the attack in the
first place, and approved of the manner in which it was carried out. Moreover, he told Joshua to do
pretty much the same to the people of Ai.
In this case, Joshua set up an ambush. His forces approached Ai to draw their defenders out, and then
killed them. After that, they massacred the rest of the defenseless people of Ai:
GWEB:
Joshua 8
8:24 It happened, when Israel had made an end of killing all the inhabitants of Ai in
the field, in the wilderness in which they pursued them, and they were all fallen by
the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all Israel returned to Ai, and
struck it with the edge of the sword. 8:25 All that fell that day, both of men and
women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. 8:26 For Joshua didn't draw
back his hand, with which he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed
all the inhabitants of Ai. 8:27 Only the livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took
for prey to themselves, according to the word of Yahweh which he commanded
Joshua. 8:28 So Joshua burnt Ai, and made it a heap forever, even a desolation, to this

day. 8:29 The king of Ai he hanged on a tree until the evening: and at the going down
of the sun Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, and cast it
at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised thereon a great heap of stones, to this
day.
It is apparent that Joshua should not have behaved like that. Having received orders from a powerful
being does not do anything to excuse his behavior and Yahweh is the one who commanded such
behavior.
All non-combatants were targeted and killed by Joshua, even after all enemy forces had been defeated.
Also, Joshua had no good reason to believe that all of the adult non-combatants were guilty of any
behavior that merited the death penalty. A command from a powerful being is surely not enough, much
less if the powerful being has the track record of Yahweh, who on many occasions gave commands that
shouldnt have been followed by those he gave those commands to, as Ive been explaining.
But moreover, even leaving that aside, and even if Joshua had had good reasons to believe that all of
adult non-combatants deserved to be killed, the fact is that Joshua did not stop with the adults. As
commanded by Yahweh, he killed all young children as well, and those children were obviously neither
guilty of any crime nor a threat to Joshua or his troops, or to other people.
The description speaks for itself, and it seems perfectly in line with the murderous behavior of several
ancient Israelite leaders described in the Bible. Also, Yahweh clearly approves of such behavior by
Joshua.
After the massacres of the people of Jericho and Ai, some people from Gibeon came up with a ruse:
They pretended to be from a distant land, so that Joshua would accept them as servants instead of
killing them. The ruse, unlike Joshuas ruse in the attack on Ai, was not meant to kill anyone, adult or
child. Rather, those people came up with a ruse as a means to save their lives from a powerful
aggressor bent on taking their land and killing them all. The ruse worked so their lives were spared, but
they were enslaved instead. The people of Jericho and Ai werent so lucky, since their leaders didnt
come up with a ruse to have them enslaved.
After Gideons surrendered, the five kings of the Amorites decided to attack Gideon in retaliation for
surrendering to Israelite forces. While the Bible does not describe the details of the attack by those
Amorite leaders, we may grant that it was done in a particularly heinous manner if needed, since thats

not the point here.

Joshua, his troops and Yahweh counterattacked, easily defeating the attackers. Unsurprisingly given the
vast difference in firepower, most of the fatalities were caused by Yahweh, who threw huge stones at
them from the sky. Later, Yahweh showed his support for Joshua by stopping the Sun and the Moon in
the sky at Joshuas request.
After those kings and their troops were defeated and killed, Joshua and his troops attacked another city,
Makkedah (Joshua 10:28), repeating the pattern shown in Jericho and Ai: everyone was slaughtered,
including defenders of the city, non-combatants, men, women, young children, the elderly, etc.
After Makkedah, similar massacres was committed against the people of Libnah, and then Lachish,
Eglon, Hebron, Devir, and many others, as the following passages describe:
GWEB:
Joshua 10
10:29 Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah, and fought
against Libnah: 10:30 and Yahweh delivered it also, and its king, into the hand of
Israel; and he struck it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls who were therein;
he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of
Jericho. 10:31 Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and
encamped against it, and fought against it: 10:32 and Yahweh delivered Lachish into
the hand of Israel; and he took it on the second day, and struck it with the edge of the
sword, and all the souls who were therein, according to all that he had done to
Libnah. 10:33 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua struck
him and his people, until he had left him none remaining. 10:34 Joshua passed from
Lachish, and all Israel with him, to Eglon; and they encamped against it, and fought
against it; 10:35 and they took it on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword;
and all the souls who were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that
he had done to Lachish. 10:36 Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, to
Hebron; and they fought against it: 10:37 and they took it, and struck it with the edge
of the sword, and its king, and all its cities, and all the souls who were therein; he left
none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but he utterly destroyed

it, and all the souls who were therein. 10:38 Joshua returned, and all Israel with him,
to Debir, and fought against it: 10:39 and he took it, and its king, and all its cities; and
they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls who
were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir,
and to its king; as he had done also to Libnah, and to its king. 10:40 So Joshua struck
all the land, the hill country, and the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all
their kings: he left none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as
Yahweh, the God of Israel, commanded. 10:41 Joshua struck them from Kadesh
Barnea even to Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even to Gibeon. 10:42 All these
kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because Yahweh, the God of Israel,
fought for Israel. 10:43 Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp to
Gilgal.
The biblical description is crystal clear, and speaks for itself. More evil deeds are described in Joshua
11.
Objection 3.3.1. Those passages are not true. Jesus loved children and would not have behaved
like that, and that gives us sufficient grounds to reject the offending passages.
Reply:
a. Even if Jesus would not have behaved like that, that does not mean that the first person of the
Christian trinity wouldnt have, if they are the same entity, because if they are, then Yahweh is a being
who is three persons (whatever that means), and only one of them is human. If the source of
information about said being says it behaved in certain ways, why reject the passages in which he
behaves immorally and choose the others?
b. Immoral behavior by Yahweh seems to be very common in the Old Testament, as Ive been pointing
out in this essay. Assuming that Yahweh is a trinity, the first person behaves appallingly very often.
c. Moreover, Jesus may have loved children, but even then, he believed or at least implied that
following Mosaic Law would not have been immoral for the ancient Israelites who lived under such
law, even if he meant to change those laws for the future.
d. There are passages of the New Testament that refer to the acts described in the Old Testament
passages under consideration.

For instance, the story of Jericho is brought about in Hebrews 11:30-32, but there is no suggestion in
Hebrews or anywhere else in the New Testament, for that matter -, that only part of the story is true.
So, why did the author of Hebrews 11 implicitly commended the actions of Joshua and the ancient
Israelite forces in Jericho, without even suggesting that if those people behaved as described in the Old
Testament, their actions were not commendable, but morally abhorrent?
So, it seems someone rejecting the Old Testament passages describing the atrocities mentioned above
would also have to reject Hebrews 11:30-32.
I will assess the matter of some of the connections between the Old and the New Testament in greater
detail later.
Objection 3.3.2. Not all non-combatants were to be killed. Rahab wasnt, and neither were those
in her house. She was righteous, so she was spared.
Reply:
a. A traitor who hides enemy spies before the attack is not a non-combatant.
b. She betrayed her city, and help an enemy army slaughter everyone else except for those in her house,
including young children. While fear for her life and/or the lives of her loved ones might somewhat
diminish the extent of her guilt, its clear that her actions were appalling as well.
c. In any case, even if some people had been spared, the targeting and slaughtering of all of those
innocents was evil and all young children were innocent. There was no justification.
Objection 3.3.3. Yahweh knocked all young children unconscious beforehand, so that they would
not suffer.
Reply:
a. There is no textual evidence of that, and surely such a massive intervention by Yahweh would have
been a very salient event, which would have been recorded.
b. The ancient Israelites who received the order to attack did not have any good evidence that young
children would be knocked unconscious beforehand.
As I explained earlier, they ought not to have obeyed an order to target all of the adults they targeted,
either, but leaving that aside, and even assuming for the sake of the argument that those ancient
Israelites would have been justified in attacking as they did if they had had conclusive evidence that all
young children would be knocked unconscious beforehand, the fact remains that they did not have

anything remotely like conclusive evidence, and so they ought not to have obeyed Yahwehs orders,
given that there was no other justification, either.
Objection 3.3.4. The ancient Israelites in question had some justification that we dont know
about.
Reply:
a. The biblical account attempts to portray the ancient Israelites who follow Yahwehs orders in a
positive light, so one would expect that they would have included a reference to a justification if they
had them. So, based on that, the claim made in this objection seems very implausible.
b. Moreover, even leaving a. aside, after carefully considering the matter, it is clear that no excuse
justified either their actions and the actions of Yahwehs.
Perhaps, a sufficiently clear threat by Yahweh to inflict far worse suffering on their innocent victims if
those ancient Israelites failed to follow their commands but that isnt the case under consideration
might have justified their actions, but surely not Yahwehs actions. And given his amount of power he
is essentially the ruler of the world, and can do as he pleases -, it seems clear that there was no
justification for his behavior.
Nor is there any other justification for their behavior. They were just engaging in immoral actions. It
would not be a reasonable interpretation of the story described in the Bible to say that there were some
mysterious reasons justifying the behavior of those obeying Yahweh in all those cases.
Objection 3.3.5. Yahweh did nothing wrong against those children, who were taken to Heaven,
when they have eternal bliss.
Reply:
a. Even if they were taken to Heaven, that would not justify commanding an action that would inflict
horrible suffering on many of those children, as they would be hacked to death by those ancient
Israelite soldiers. The fact is that Yahweh could have moved them to a place of bliss without any
suffering. The actions of Yahweh were not justified.
b. The soldiers who committed the slaughter neither believed in Heaven, nor had any good reasons to
even suspect that the infants they were about to slay would go to Heaven. So, they didnt even have
that attempted excuse.
In any case, had those soldiers believed in Heaven, and had they further had good reasons to believe

that the infants they were about to hack to death would go to Heaven, they should have realized that
Yahwehs actions were morally unacceptable as pointed out in a., and that so was what was demanded
of them, since that horrific slaughter is not justified by further rewards no matter how great for that
matter, again, Yahweh had the option of taking those children to Heaven directly, with no prior horrific
torment.
But lets consider the actions of the soldiers (including commanders, etc.), in greater detail:
c. Those ancient Israelites who had witnessed at least one of Yahwehs displays of power in the context
of his giving the command to attack and commit the massacre had at best evidence that a very powerful
being was commanding them to attack a city and slaughter all of the inhabitants, including children,
non-combatants, etc. Clearly, they should not have believed that the entity in question was morally
good, and in any case, they had a moral obligation to disobey the command.
d. Those ancient Israelites who did not witness any of Yahwehs displays of power in that context only
had the word of their commander that Yahweh had commanded the slaughter. Now, that command
would have been in line with some of the other atrocities that Yahweh is described as commanding or
committing in other parts the Old Testament, so perhaps those people had heard stories that would
make such a command in character under the assumption of existence of Yahweh.
Yet, even granting for the sake of the argument that they had good reasons to believe that Yahweh
existed and had given the command, they had a moral obligation to disobey, since under those
assumptions they would have been in a situation relevantly similar to that of the ancient Israelites
whose actions I addressed earlier in c.
Objection 3.3.6. Yahweh did nothing wrong against those infants, who were taken to Heaven,
when they have eternal bliss. The ancient Israelites who received the command were justified
because by taking a look at Yahwehs actions in general, they should have concluded that he was
a morally good being, whose commands were always justified, even if they did not know why in
particular.
Reply:
a. Even if those infants were taken to Heaven, that would not justify commanding an action that would
inflict horrible suffering on many of them, as they would be hacked to death by those ancient Israelite
soldiers. The fact is that Yahweh could have moved them to a place of bliss without any suffering. The

actions of Yahweh were not justified.

b. If the ancient Israelites who received the command had had, before receiving this particular
command, good reasons for believing that Yahweh was morally good, then given what this command
was, they should have reckoned that one of the following was the case:
b.1. Yahweh had not given the command, and some of their fellow ancient Israelites had made it
up.
b.2. Yahweh had not given the command, and some powerful evil entity pretending to be Yahweh
had done so instead.
b.3. Their previous assessment that Yahweh was morally good was mistaken, even if justified
based on the evidence they previously had.
At any rate, they had a moral obligation not to hack children to death in that situation. They ought to
have disobeyed the command.
c. Actually, those ancient Israelites should not have concluded that Yahweh was morally good, prior to
receiving the command, and even assuming their belief that Yahweh existed was justified, for the
following reasons:
c.1. The Yahweh-authored domestic law that they had was overall very unjust. While it had some
acceptable dispositions, others were so morally evil that overall the system was very unjust. For
that matter, one can find some acceptable dispositions in laws enforced by the Taliban, or the
laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or of Saudi Arabia, or even Aztec laws. But that does not
change the fact that those systems are overall very unjust. Mosaic Law also falls into that
category, for the reasons I explained earlier in this essay.
For those reasons, if their belief that the author of Mosaic Law was Yahweh was justified, then
based on that those ancient Israelites should have concluded that Yahweh was not morally good,
let alone morally perfect.
c.2. In addition to the laws, some of the other actions committed by Yahweh as described in the
Old Testament were appalling, like his behavior against the innocent in Egypt. So, if those
ancient Israelites were justified in believing that those actions had been carried out by Yahweh,
they should have concluded he was not morally good.
c.3. If those ancient Israelites were not justified in their belief that the law was from Yahweh, or

that the other actions were also Yahwehs, then they should have at least realized that Yahweh had
failed to make himself clear at all despite his power, and based on that, at least they should have
refrained from concluding that he was morally good.
3.4. Amalek.
In this subsection, I will address the events described in 1 Samuel 15, in which some ancient Israelites,
following Yahwehs commands, attack a city.
Lets take a look at Yahwehs command, according to Samuel:
GWEB:
1 Samuel 15
15:1 Samuel said to Saul, Yahweh sent me to anoint you to be king over his people,
over Israel: now therefore listen you to the voice of the words of Yahweh. 15:2 Thus
says Yahweh of Armies, I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set
himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 15:3 Now go and
strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and don't spare them; but kill
both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.
Given that Samuel didnt lie according to the story, then the story holds that Yahweh commanded the
killing of people living at the time of the attack for the actions of their ancestors. Also, he commanded
the killing of infants as well.
In this case, whether or not the adults persisted in their attacks against some Israelites is not a factor
included in the rationale. Only the actions of their ancestors are counted.
The ancient Israelites who received that command should have realized that the adults they were
targeting didnt deserve to be killed for the actions of their ancestors, even if those Amalekites denied
that the actions of their ancestors were immoral, just like someone who, say, denies that the killings of
Stalin were immoral, does not deserve the death penalty because of it.
But moreover, leaving aside the adults, the ancient Israelites receiving the orders should have realized
that infants did not deserve to be slaughtered, and furthermore that there was no justification for such
behavior.
Objection 3.4.1. The ancient Israelites who were in that situation had sufficient reasons for their
conclusion that the killing of all the adults was justified. Babies who needed to be breastfed had

be killed as well, because adopting them wouldnt have been possible without their mothers, since
they would have died of starvation.
Reply:
a. Actually, one can tell based on the story that the ancient Israelites who received the command were
told by Yahweh that the reason was to punish those people for the actions of some of their ancestors,
and thats not justified at all. There is no indication that they believed that they had some other reason.
Moreover, they had no good reason to believe that all of the adults deserved to die.
b. Even leaving points a. and b. aside, and even if no alternative source of milk were available, this
proposed excuse fails to address the slaughter of infants who could eat other foods, and who could be
adopted instead of massacred. Instead, the Yahwehists in question chose to obey the command and to
kill all of those young children.
Furthermore, they either reckoned or should have reckoned that those infants their victims would in
some cases die suffering horrible pain they would be hacked and slashed with primitive weapons -, so
in addition to the already atrocious killings, one may add the atrocious suffering caused in the process.
Their actions were despicable.
Objection 3.4.2. Yahweh did not give the command. Samuel lied.
Reply:
There is no textual support for that claim.
In fact, at no point does Yahweh complain that Samuel might have lied.
Moreover, the text clearly shows that that was not the case, as we can see in the following passage:
GWEB:
1 Samuel 15
15:7 Saul struck the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, that is before Egypt.
15:8 He took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the
people with the edge of the sword. 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the
best of the sheep, and of the cattle, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was
good, and wouldn't utterly destroy them: but everything that was vile and refuse, that
they destroyed utterly. 15:10 Then came the word of Yahweh to Samuel, saying,
15:11 It grieves me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned back from

following me, and has not performed my commandments. Samuel was angry; and he
cried to Yahweh all night.
So, Yahweh complained because Saul had failed to kill everything as commanded, but did not complain
about Samuels representation of Yahwehs commands. Its clear that according to biblical description,
Samuel did not lie, nor was he mistaken about what Yahweh had commanded.
Objection 3.4.3. Those passages are not true. Jesus loved children and would not have behaved
like that, and that gives us sufficient grounds to reject the offending passages.
Reply:
I addressed this matter earlier, when assessing the case of Canaan. Most of those points apply to this
case as well.
Objection 3.4.4. Those ancient Israelites following Yahwehs commands, every time, had some
justification that we dont know about.
Reply:
a. The biblical account attempts to portray the ancient Israelites who follow Yahwehs orders in a
positive light, so one would expect that they would have included a reference to a justification if they
had them. So, based on that, the claim made in this objection seems very implausible.
b. Moreover, in this case, the rationale for the attack is explained: its because of some immoral
behavior that some of the ancestors of the victims engaged in. Its surely unacceptable.
c. Furthermore, even leaving a. and b. aside, after carefully considering the matter, it is clear that no
excuse justified either their actions and the actions of Yahwehs.
Perhaps, a sufficiently clear threat by Yahweh to inflict far worse punishment on their innocent victims
if those ancient Israelites failed to follow their commands might have justified their actions but that
isnt the case under consideration -, but surely not Yahwehs actions. And given his amount of power
he is essentially the ruler of the world, and can do as he pleases -, it seems clear that there was no
justification for his behavior.
Nor is there any other justification for their behavior. They were just engaging in immoral actions. It
would not be a reasonable interpretation of the story described in the Bible to say that there were some
mysterious reasons justifying the behavior of those obeying Yahweh in all those cases.
Other objections are handled in a way similar to similar objections in the previous subsection.

Objection 3.4.5. No children suffered. They were just zapped into Heaven by Yahweh, before
experiencing any pain.
Reply:
a. Actually, Yahweh commanded some of the ancient Israelites to kill all those children. That wouldnt
make sense if Yahweh had killed them by himself, zapping them instantly into Heaven. So, the children
had to undergo different periods of suffering depending on the case while they were being
slaughtered by those ancient Israelite raiders.
b. Even this would not justify the actions against the adults, who were being punished for what some of
their ancestors did.
c. Even that would not justify the actions of the ancient Israelites who followed the command, and
which were never told about Heaven. In fact, its pretty clear in the text that the ancient Israelites in
question were bent on massacring those children as well.
Objection 3.4.6. The Amalekite adults continued to sin. They excused the actions of their
ancestors. They were being punished for their own actions, not for those of their ancestors.
Reply:
a. That is not what the text says. The text is talking about a collective punishment on the Amalekites of
the time of the attack, regardless of behavior and/or age, for the actions of some of their ancestors.
b. In any event, that would not justify the infliction of terrible suffering on Amalekite children.
Objection 3.4.7. It was necessary to destroy the Amalekite culture, because there was a threat
that they would spread their evil ways. Also, the adults were guilty. Properly interpreted, the
reason for the attack was to remove bad people who would spread their evil ways.
Reply:
a. The ancient Israelites involved had no good reason to believe that those of the people they were
targeting were guilty of anything. Even if Yahweh had claimed so, there would have been no good
reason to believe an entity who makes as many false claims as Yahweh does.
Still, there is no need to rely on that, since:
b. There is no textual support for the claims in objection 3.4.7. In fact, the command was explicitly to
go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and dont spare them; but kill both man
and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.; the rationale was Yahweh of

Armies says, I remember what Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way, when
he came up out of Egypt..
Its apparent that the primary objective is to punish those Amalekites who lived at the time of the attack
for their actions of some of their ancestors; but lets say that it was just one of several objectives, and
not even the primary one. Even then, it would have been unjust to kill those Amalekites for the actions
of some of their ancestors.
c. Regardless, there is no need to kill young children, who were not evil, and could be raised not to be
evil well, perhaps not by the monsters who followed Yahwehs monstrous orders, but hypothetically.
3.5. Uriah.
According to the Bible, David had sex with Uriahs wife, Bathsheba, and then had Uriah killed.
Yahweh punished David for that murder. Lets see how Yahweh punished him:
GWEB:
2 Samuel 11:
11:1 It happened, at the return of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle, that
David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the
children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem. 11:2 It
happened at evening, that David arose from off his bed, and walked on the roof of the
king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very
beautiful to look on. 11:3 David send and inquired after the woman. One said, Is not
this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 11:4 David sent
messengers, and took her; and she came in to him, and he lay with her (for she was
purified from her uncleanness); and she returned to her house. 11:5 The woman
conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, I am with child. 11:6 David sent to
Joab, saying, Send me Uriah the Hittite. Joab sent Uriah to David. 11:7 When Uriah
was come to him, David asked of him how Joab did, and how the people fared, and
how the war prospered. 11:8 David said to Uriah, Go down to your house, and wash
your feet. Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of
food from the king. 11:9 But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the

servants of his lord, and didn't go down to his house. 11:10 When they had told
David, saying, Uriah didn't go down to his house, David said to Uriah, Haven't you
come from a journey? why did you not go down to your house? 11:11 Uriah said to
David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the
servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field; shall I then go into my house, to
eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as you live, and as your soul lives, I will not
do this thing. 11:12 David said to Uriah, Stay here today also, and tomorrow I will let
you depart. So Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day, and the next day. 11:13 When
David had called him, he ate and drink before him; and he made him drunk: and at
even he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but didn't go down to
his house. 11:14 It happened in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and
sent it by the hand of Uriah. 11:15 He wrote in the letter, saying, Set Uriah in the
forefront of the hottest battle, and retire you from him, that he may be struck, and die.
11:16 It happened, when Joab kept watch on the city, that he assigned Uriah to the
place where he knew that valiant men were. 11:17 The men of the city went out, and
fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people, even of the servants of David;
and Uriah the Hittite died also. 11:18 Then Joab sent and told David all the things
concerning the war; 11:19 and he commanded the messenger, saying, "When you
have made an end of telling all the things concerning the war to the king, 11:20 it
shall be that, if the king's wrath arise, and he tells you, 'Why did you go so near to the
city to fight? Didn't you know that they would shoot from the wall? 11:21 who struck
Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? Didn't a woman cast an upper millstone on him
from the wall, so that he died at Thebez? Why did you go so near the wall?' then you
shall say, 'Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.'" 11:22 So the messenger went,
and came and showed David all that Joab had sent him for. 11:23 The messenger said
to David, The men prevailed against us, and came out to us into the field, and we
were on them even to the entrance of the gate. 11:24 The shooters shot at your
servants from off the wall; and some of the king's servants are dead, and your servant
Uriah the Hittite is dead also. 11:25 Then David said to the messenger, Thus you shall

tell Joab, Don't let this thing displease you, for the sword devours one as well as
another; make your battle more strong against the city, and overthrow it: and
encourage you him. 11:26 When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was
dead, she made lamentation for her husband. 11:27 When the mourning was past,
David sent and took her home to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a
son. But the thing that David had done displeased Yahweh.
So, Yahweh was displeased with Davids actions, and so he decided to respond as follows:
GWEB[1]
2 Samuel 12:
12:11 This is what Yahweh says: 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your
own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your
neighbor, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12:12 For you did it
secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.'"
So, Davids wives completely non-guilty on this matter are going to be given by Yahweh to
Davids neighbor, to be raped if they dont feel like having sex with him since their consent is not
required anywhere.
GWEB:
2 Samuel 12:
12:13 David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against Yahweh." Nathan said to David,
"Yahweh also has put away your sin. You will not die. 12:14 However, because by
this deed you have given great occasion to Yahweh's enemies to blaspheme, the child
also who is born to you shall surely die." 12:15 Nathan departed to his house. Yahweh
struck the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and it was very sick. 12:16 David
therefore begged God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night
on the earth. 12:17 The elders of his house arose, and stood beside him, to raise him
up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. 12:18 It
happened on the seventh day, that the child died. The servants of David feared to tell
him that the child was dead; for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we

spoke to him, and he didn't listen to our voice: how will he then harm himself, if we
tell him that the child is dead!
So, as a means to punish David for his murderous and treacherous actions, Yahweh decided to target
someone else as well: David and Bathshebas son was slowly killed by Yahweh, who caused him to be
very sick for a week, and then die.
Objection 3.5.1. Yahweh has sovereignty over life and death. He gives life, and so he has the right
to take it. He does no wrong by killing David and Bathshebas son.
Reply:
a. There seems to be no good reason to believe that he has the right to take someones life just because
he gave that person life. Parents, for instance, do not have that right.
b. In any event, Yahweh is not only killing the child. Hes making him very sick, with an illness that
kills him in a week. Someone might suggest that, perhaps, the child was always unconscious and
suffered no pain, but there is no textual reason supporting that, and usually when someone becomes
very ill and die in a week, they do suffer, so without any further information about the childs
condition, the most probable interpretation of the scenario in the text is that he suffered.
c. Even if we leave the case of child aside, that would not excuse Yahwehs decision to give Davids
wives to Davids neighbor, regardless of whether those women consented.
Objection 3.5.2. That passage was an allegory. Those events never happened. Yahweh was
teaching the ancient Israelites a moral lesson against adultery and murder.
Reply:
But that would teach wrong lessons, since the actions attributed to Yahweh are implicitly considered
acceptable given the context of the text, even though they would have been unacceptable.
Objection 3.5.3. Those passages ought to be removed from the Bible.
Reply:
That deflects a moral objection against Christianity based on the events described in this subsection,
but at the cost of rejecting part of the Old Testament. It seems someone raising this objection but
accepting much of the Old Testament would have to explain why she makes such difference.

Moreover, rejecting the account of this particular incident would not suffice. In fact, given the number
and extent of the atrocities attributed to Yahweh in the Old Testament, much of it would need to be
rejected. Similarly, much of the New Testament would have to be rejected as well, given its
connections to the Old Testament a matter I will address later.
3.6. The Sabbath.
In addition to giving many unjust laws, Yahweh sometimes gave orders to unjustly punish specific
people. One example of that can be found in the Book of Numbers.
GWEB:
Numbers 15:
15:32 While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering
sticks on the Sabbath day. 15:33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him
to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 15:34 They put him in custody,
because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 15:35 Yahweh said to
Moses, The man shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with
stones outside of the camp. 15:36 All the congregation brought him outside of the
camp, and stoned him to death with stones; as Yahweh commanded Moses.
So, since there was no specific declared punishment for someone who gathered sticks on a Sabbath, but
there was a law against working on Sabbath, it seems an unjust law, as often -, they put the man in
custody. And Yahweh directly commanded that the man be stoned to death for breaking the rules he
imposed on those people by gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
Then, Moses actually followed this command, and so did the rest of the congregation.
Lets just try to imagine the situation: Moses is told by Yahweh to stone a man to death for working on
a Sabbath. Moses, it seems, fails to realize that such being is a moral monster, and just relays the
command to a group of other people. Its clear in context that Moses here was not following the
command just out of fear which might have reduced the immorality of his behavior to some extent -,
but willinglyThe fact that Yahweh a powerful monster commands that a man be stoned to death provides of
course no justification for stoning him to death. But moreover, it was clear in context that the reason
broadly speaking, as he was being unreasonable why Yahweh wanted them to horribly torture that

man to death was not some mysterious deed that only Yahweh knew about, but simply for disobeying
one of the commands that Yahweh gave them, by working on a Sabbath.
Those people should have realized that the command they were given was profoundly unjust, and
furthermore that they should not have followed it at all. Yahweh behave in a morally monstrous way by
issuing the command in the first place, and in this case, Moses and other humans who participated
willingly behaved just as despicably.
Objection 3.6.1. He deserved to be stoned to death for disobeying a morally perfect creator.
Reply:
a. It should be obvious that simply disobeying a creator would not merit being stoned to death, even if
he were morally perfect.
b. Yahweh is not morally perfect, but a moral monster, and this particular command is an example of
his evilness.
c. In any case, Moses and those other people had no good reason at all to believe that Yahweh was
morally perfect, or even morally good. In fact, even if they had seen great displays of power on his
part, great power does not even suggest moral goodness, let alone moral perfection.
Moreover, given that Yahweh was commanding that they stone a human being to death just for
disobeying him, they ought to have realized Yahweh was not morally good. Of course, given his track
record, they should have known by then that they were dealing with an enormously powerful, evil
entity.
d. As a side note not important from a moral perspective, though the people stoning that man to
death had no sufficient reason for thinking that the monster issuing the commands in question had not
himself either been created by some other, perhaps even more powerful being, or perhaps formed from
some non-intelligent stuff, even if they had no sufficient reason to conclude that he had, either.
3.7. Mass murder of captives, mass rape, and sex slavery.
Numbers 31 describes how Yahweh commanded Moses to carry out an attack on other people, and the
events that unfolded after that.
GWEB:
Numbers 31
31:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the

Midianites: afterward you shall be gathered to your people. 31:3 Moses spoke to the
people, saying, Arm you men from among you for the war, that they may go against
Midian, to execute Yahweh's vengeance on Midian. 31:4 Of every tribe one thousand,
throughout all the tribes of Israel, you shall send to the war. 31:5 So there were
delivered, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand
armed for war. 31:6 Moses sent them, one thousand of every tribe, to the war, them
and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the vessels of the
sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. 31:7 They warred against
Midian, as Yahweh commanded Moses; and they killed every male. 31:8 They killed
the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur,
and Reba, the five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they killed with the
sword. 31:9 The children of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little
ones; and all their livestock, and all their flocks, and all their goods, they took for a
prey. 31:10 All their cities in the places in which they lived, and all their
encampments, they burnt with fire. 31:11 They took all the spoil, and all the prey,
both of man and of animal. 31:12 They brought the captives, and the prey, and the
spoil, to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of
Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan at Jericho.
So, those ancient Israelite troops attacked and killed every single man, apparently regardless of whether
those men were combatants or not, whether they were too ill or old to fight, or whether they had
surrendered. They also took the women and their children as spoils of war. In other words, they took
them as slaves as slaves, and brought them to Moses and to one of Yahwehs priests.
The soldiers surely would expect to take women as sex slaves their consent was not required, as usual
-, raping them repeatedly in accordance to Yahwehs laws.
What was Mosess reaction?
GWEB:
Numbers 31
31:13 Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went
forth to meet them outside of the camp. 31:14 Moses was angry with the officers of

the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the
service of the war. 31:15 Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to
commit trespass against Yahweh in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among
the congregation of Yahweh. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little
ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the
girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
So, Moses was not angry because his troops wanted to enslave children both boys and girls -, or
because they wanted to enslave adult women, in general.
Instead, Moses was angry because the soldiers had kept the women who were not virgins alive, and
apparently unless he was lying about his motivation, but why would he? - he believed that all of the
women who were not virgin had caused the children of Israel to trespass against Yahweh.
Furthermore, he believed apparently that those women deserved to be killed for that.
So, Moses commanded that all women who were not virgins be killed. He further commanded that
every male child be killed as well.
On the other hand, Moses told his men to keep the virgin girls for themselves - implicitly for sex
slavery and repeated rape in the future - if they so choose.
It is not specified what he wanted his men to do with adult women who were virgins if there were any
-, or with girls who were not virgins because they had been raped already. Given context, it seems all
non-virgins were to be killed regardless of whether they were adults. As for adult women, also context
indicates that they were presumed to be non-virgins which might or might have been true, but of
course does not justify the killings in any way -, and were to be executed. In any event, his command
was immoral regardless of how he split the girls and the women between those that were to be killed
and those that were to be enslaved and raped whenever their masters chose.
So, in particular, Moses:
1. Falsely blamed all non-virgin women for a plague. Of course, regardless of what some Israelite
men did in order to have sex with at most some surely not all of those women, those men
made their own choices, and in any case, surely blaming those women for a plague was absurd.
2. Murdered all of the boys but kept girls for slavery, including sex slavery and thus repeated

rape.
Given that behavior, even independently of other events, one should reckon that Moses was a moral
monster, a mass-murderer and mass-rapist regardless of whether he engaged in mass rape personally,
he surely was responsible given his commands.
So, what was Yahweh's reaction?
GWEB:
Numbers 31
31:25 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 31:26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken,
both of man and of animal, you, and Eleazar the priest, and the heads of the fathers'
houses of the congregation; 31:27 and divide the prey into two parts: between the
men skilled in war, who went out to battle, and all the congregation. 31:28 Levy a
tribute to Yahweh of the men of war who went out to battle: one soul of five hundred,
both of the persons, and of the cattle, and of the donkeys, and of the flocks: 31:29
take it of their half, and give it to Eleazar the priest, for Yahweh's wave offering.
31:30 Of the children of Israel's half, you shall take one drawn out of every fifty, of
the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys, and of the flocks, even of all the livestock,
and give them to the Levites, who perform the duty of the tent of Yahweh.
Yahweh did not punish Moses or his men, or expressed any disapproval whatsoever, but proceeded to
give instructions as to how to divide the spoils of war, including the people taken as slaves.
Even assuming for the sake of the argument that there was no human sacrifice and Yahwehs wave
offering was just giving some captives to the priests as slaves, the fact remains that Yahweh
instructed Moses and, through him, many other ancient Israelite men to engage in mass slavery and
mass rape. Yahweh is another moral monster, like Moses.
So, what happened then?
They just proceeded to divide the spoils, after murdering the captive women and perhaps girls who
were not virgins or who they believed were not virgins, anyway and the children of those who had
children. While it would have been monstrous to do that to a single woman or to a single child, one
may point out here that the massacre was massive, as one may reckon from the description.
GWEB:

Numbers 31
31:31 Moses and Eleazar the priest did as Yahweh commanded Moses. 31:32 Now
the prey, over and above the booty which the men of war took, was six hundred
seventy-five thousand sheep, 31:33 and seventy-two thousand head of cattle, 31:34
and sixty-one thousand donkeys, 31:35 and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of the
women who had not known man by lying with him. 31:36 The half, which was the
portion of those who went out to war, was in number three hundred thirty-seven
thousand five hundred sheep: 31:37 and Yahweh's tribute of the sheep was six
hundred seventy-five. 31:38 The cattle were thirty-six thousand; of which Yahweh's
tribute was seventy-two. 31:39 The donkeys were thirty thousand five hundred; of
which Yahweh's tribute was sixty-one. 31:40 The persons were sixteen thousand; of
whom Yahweh's tribute was thirty-two persons. 31:41 Moses gave the tribute, which
was Yahweh's wave offering, to Eleazar the priest, as Yahweh commanded Moses.
31:42 Of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided off from the men who
warred 31:43 (now the congregation's half was three hundred thirty-seven thousand
five hundred sheep, 31:44 and thirty-six thousand head of cattle, 31:45 and thirty
thousand five hundred donkeys, 31:46 and sixteen thousand persons), 31:47 even of
the children of Israel's half, Moses took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man and
of animal, and gave them to the Levites, who performed the duty of the tent of
Yahweh; as Yahweh commanded Moses. 31:48 The officers who were over the
thousands of the army, the captains of thousands, and the captains of hundreds, came
near to Moses; 31:49 and they said to Moses, Your servants have taken the sum of the
men of war who are under our command, and there lacks not one man of us. 31:50
We have brought Yahweh's offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold,
armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and necklaces, to make atonement for
our souls before Yahweh. 31:51 Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them,
even all worked jewels. 31:52 All the gold of the wave offering that they offered up to
Yahweh, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen
thousand seven hundred fifty shekels. 31:53 (For the men of war had taken booty,

every man for himself.) 31:54 Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the
captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the Tent of Meeting, for a
memorial for the children of Israel before Yahweh.
So, 32000 girls and/or women were taken as slaves. Usually, that would mean sex slavery, so they
would live a life of constant rape. The number of boys who were murdered is not specified, and neither
is the number of women who were not virgins or presumed to be non-virgins, anyway.
However, one can tell that the number of murder victims in that event was probably also in the
thousands, since there is no good reason to suspect that there were so many more virgin girls and
adult women, if any were spared than boys and women who were not virgins or were presumed to
be non-virgins put together.
So, given those actions, one ought to reckon that Yahweh is a moral monster. And so is Moses.
Objection 3.7.0. Yahweh did not command that anyone be raped.
He only commanded the attack and give instructions as to how to split the virgins who had been
taken as slaves, but then it was up to the slave owners to decide whether to rape the virgin women
they took as slaves. They were allowed not to rape them if they so chose. For all we know, none of
those men chose to rape their female slaves. In fact, the soldiers and the others were not even
commanded to keep the virgins as slaves. They were allowed to set them free.
Reply:
1. Given context, it's pretty obvious that at least many probably most of those virgin girls and
adult women, if any adult woman were spared were to be raped.
2. Even if they hadn't been raped, Yahweh and Moses would still be responsible for giving them to
those men as slaves, and further for allowing them to choose whether to rape them. Moreover, even if
they hadn't allowed rape but they did -, they would have been responsible for giving them to those
men as slaves.
3. Even if all of those virgins girls - and adult women if there were any - had been set free which is
obviously not what happened in at least nearly all cases -, Moses and Yahweh were responsible for
giving those victims to different groups of men as slaves.
Purely for example, Yahweh commanded that one out of a hundred virgin girls - and women, if any
adult women were spared - be handed over to the Levites as slaves. That is evil.

4. Yahweh and Moses were also responsible for the massacre of non-virgin or presumed non-virgin
women and maybe girls too -, and of all of the boys, and so on.
Objection 3.7.1. Yahweh is sovereign. He has the right to take any life at any time of his choosing.
Hence, he did nothing wrong for commanding the killings. Neither did Moses.
Reply:
1. Even assuming Yahweh created humans, that does not give him the right to kill them at will.
2. Even if one does not count the killings, those children were inflicted horrible suffering. Its not as if
they were just zapped into Heaven before they knew what was going on. Rather, were talking about
the mass slaughter of boys by ancient Israelite soldiers.
3. Moses had seen Yahwehs displays of power, but power does not make a being morally good. Rather,
given Yahwehs commands and actions, Moses should have figured that Yahweh was not morally good.
4. Incidentally, while it makes no moral difference in this context creator or not, Yahweh is a
similarly despicable being -, but actually being powerful does not show that Yahweh is the creator of
humans, let alone of every other concrete being. The displays of power witnessed by Moses did not
surpass those of some supervillains in some comics or generally fantasy stories.
5. In addition to mass murder, Yahweh, Moses and his accomplices are also guilty of mass slavery and
mass rape either directly or as accessories, depending on the specific case.
So, both Yahweh and Moses are monsters, and would be so even if they hadn't committed murder,
because of their other actions.
6. Moses is also guilty of the false accusation against women who werent virgins, and whom he and
his men murdered whom he blamed for a plague, while that clearly was not their fault.
Of course, blaming them is immoral but less so than murdering them. But Moses did both.
Objection 3.7.2. The male children had to be killed, otherwise they would have retaliated against
Israel later. That justifies the killing.
Reply:
1. With that criterion, someone might say that it would be a justified policy for Russia to kill the
children of Chechen rebels and/or terrorists, to prevent further attacks when those children grow up.
Clearly, that would be mass-murder, rather than justified killings. And the same applies to the biblical
case under consideration.

2. In any case, Yahweh who was often willing to interfere directly, by means of giving commands and
sometimes even by taking part in the hostilities could easily block any attempted retaliation, using
energy shields or whatever he likes.
3. Furthermore, while the killing of those boys was obviously an abhorrent act mass murder -, in
addition to the killing, there was the suffering inflicted on them on Mosess command its not as if
Yahweh took them to Heaven instantly -, and Yahweh was on board with that there was not even a
hint of a disagreement with Moses.
4. In addition to the mass-murder of boys, Moses and some of those ancient Israelites engaged in mass
slavery and mass rape of girls and perhaps some women. And Moses falsely blamed all women who
were not virgins for a plague, using that as part of his attempted reason to kill them all.
Objection 3.7.3. The male children were better off being killed. Otherwise, they would have died
more slowly of starvation without their mothers and the rest of their families.
Reply:
1. With that criterion, someone might try to justify slaughtering male children because theyre orphans.
2. The way in which they were killed, while faster than starvation, inflicted enormous suffering on
them. Assuming for the sake of the argument that killing them had been acceptable for Yahweh, he
could have just taken them to Heaven immediately.
3. Clearly, Moses did not have those children killed them in order to do them a favor. Of course, if
Moses had killed those children in order to do them a favor, that would still not have justified his
actions. He ought to have known better.
4. If Moses was trying to do those children a favor by killing them, then why did he kill just the boys?
Why not the virgin girls?
Objection 3.7.4. The male children were better off being killed. Otherwise, if some of them
managed to reach adulthood, they would have gone to Hell forever after their deaths. So, killing
them was their salvation.
Reply:
1. If there is infinite Hell, that is Yahwehs biggest atrocity. If he wanted to save them from Hell, all he
had to do was to refrain from sending them to Hell. But I will address the matter of Hell in much
greater detail later.

2. Moses did not know anything about Hell, and did not had those children killed in order to save them
from Hell.
3. As before, if Moses had been trying to save those children from something whatever that
something was -, then why did he only had the boys killed, but not the virgin girls?
Objection 3.7.5. All of the women who were not virgins had led at least one ancient Israelite
astray, and that resulted in a plague. For that, they deserved to be executed.
Reply:
1. Its absurdly implausible to think that every single one of them had convinced at least one ancient
Israelite men of doing anything.
2. Even leaving 1. aside, those ancient Israelite men made their own choices.
3. If there was a plague caused by Yahweh, then Yahweh was responsible for that.
4. Regardless, in addition to the murder of those women, Moses and Yahweh were responsible for the
suffering inflicted on their children. In the case of their daughters, they were enslaved and raped. As for
their sons, they were murdered.
Objection 3.7.6. Those virgin girls and women would not have had a better life without the
Israelite soldiers. So, by taking those women and girls with them, the Israelite soldiers were doing
them a favor. Yahweh instructed that out of concern for the well-being of those girls and women.
Reply:
1. They were raped and enslaved. Thats not a favor, or acceptable.
While the virgin women in question probably would have faced a very difficult situation after all of
their family members who were either men on non-virgin women or assumed to be non-virgin,
anyway had been slaughtered in accordance to Yahwehs and Mosess commands, they still had the
right not to have sexual intercourse with the men who had just slaughtered their families, or for that
matter with anyone else. Similarly, they had the right not to serve them in general, sex aside. In other
words, it was still their right to choose. But Yahweh, Moses and their accomplices did not respect that
right. They engaged in mass slavery and mass rape.
2. In the case of girls, Moses and his men had no right to enslave them, either, let alone rape them.
3. Incidentally, the motivation of the Israelite soldiers, and Mosess motivation, obviously wasnt to
help those women and girls, after slaughtering the rest of their families. They just saw them as bounty

and so, as their property and wanted to use them for sex and a variety of other purposes.
Of course, even having the motivation to protect them would not have been an excuse rape and slavery.
If Moses and his men were so utterly confused that they thought that they were doing those girls and
women a favor by taking them by force from their homes, holding them captives and raping them
repeatedly, they still had a moral obligation not to be so confused, and not to do that. Similarly, Yahweh
too was behaving monstrously, and either he knew that or he ought to have known that.
Objection 3.7.7. Men who surrendered were not killed.
Reply:
There is no biblical evidence of that, but lets say for the sake of the argument and in the context of the
reply to this objection that non-combatants were not killed. Moreover, lets also leave all of the killings
aside in this context, just for the sake of the argument. Then, the actions of mass slavery and mass rape
commanded, instructed, and/or approved of by Yahweh and Moses are appalling, and both of them are
blameworthy.
Objection 3.7.8. The claims made in those biblical passages are not true. Someone made up the
story. Those events never happened. Yahweh is morally perfect, and he would never command
anything like that. Neither would Moses.
Reply:
The atrocities I addressed in this subsection are in line with the immoral behavior displayed by
Yahweh, Moses and others throughout the Old Testament, as earlier parts of this essay show.
Granted, someone might hold that much of the Old Testament is false but the New Testament is all true,
but then, the New Testaments connections to the Old Testament make such a stance untenable. Ive
already addressed some of those connections briefly, and I will further address that matter below.
3.8. Noah, Ham, and Canaan.
According to the Bible, Noah was a just man:
GWEB:
Genesis 6
6:9 This is the history of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man,
blameless among the people of his time. Noah walked with God. 6:10 Noah became
the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

As it happened, one of Noahs sons, Ham, saw Noah naked. Its not clear what else he did, if anything.
GWEB:
Genesis 9
9:20 Noah began to be a farmer, and planted a vineyard. 9:21 He drank of the wine
and got drunk. He was uncovered within his tent. 9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan,
saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 9:23 Shem and
Japheth took a garment, and laid it on both their shoulders, went in backwards, and
covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were backwards, and they didn't see
their father's nakedness. 9:24 Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his
youngest son had done to him. 9:25 He said,
"Canaan is cursed.
He will be servant of servants to his brothers."
9:26 He said,
"Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Shem.
Let Canaan be his servant.
9:27 May God enlarge Japheth.
Let him dwell in the tents of Shem.
Let Canaan be his servant."
So, Noah is described as a righteous man, and when his son Ham sees him naked, Noah curses Hams
son, Canaan, asks Yahweh to make Canaan a servant of his brothers as a punishment for Hams
behavior.
So, Ham somehow offended Noah, and then Noah punishes Hams son Canaan for the alleged
transgression of his father Ham. Thats obviously unjust behavior. Well, perhaps its not obvious to
people like Noah or Yahweh, or the writers of the Old Testament, but its still very unjust on Noahs
part, and even if Noah failed to realize that, that is no excuse - he should have realized.
Objection 3.8.1. Ham did not just saw Noah naked. Ham sexually abused his father Noah.
Reply:
Regardless of what Ham may have done to Noah, Canaan did not deserve to be punish for the actions
of his father.

Objection 3.8.2. Ham did not just saw Noah naked. Ham sexually abused his father Noah. And
Canaan was an accomplice.
Reply:
Actually, the biblical text is clear that cursing Canaan was Noahs reaction after Noah realized what
Ham not Canaan had done to him. Noah was reacting only to what he knew about Hams actions.
Moreover, the text also depicts the events involving Ham, not Canaan.
Objection 3.8.2. Noah was generally a righteous man, and was blameless before the Flood
happened. But he was not morally perfect, and he behaved immorally by cursing Canaan.
Reply:
1. Someone who goes as far as to try to turn his grandson into a servant as a punishment for the actions
of his son is not a righteous man. While a generally good person might behave immorally under some
circumstances, a generally good person wouldnt engage in willful punishment of the innocent
2. Moreover, there is no criticism whatsoever in the Bible of Noahs cursing Canaan.
4. The New Testament and the Old Testament. Some of the links.
In this section, I will address some of the connections between the New Testament and the Old
Testament.
In particular, I will focus on some events depicted in the New Testament and in which Jesus, Paul or
other characters in the New Testament say or at least imply that all of the Law in the Old Testament
was from Yahweh, and furthermore was just, and on some of Pauls own writings in the New
Testament.
I will also consider situations in which the characters in the New Testament interpret events in the Old
Testament literally events in which Yahweh behaves in a morally appalling manner, even if of those
the writers of those passages fail to realize that, and so do the characters depicted in those passages.
4.1 Jesus and the Old Testament.
In this subsection, I will address some of Jesuss claims or implications about the Old Testament, as
described in the New Testament. In particular but not exclusively I will focus on some of the
connections between Jesus and Old Testament Law, which suffice to show that Jesus was not morally
perfect.
4.1.1 Old Testament Law sufficed until the time of John.

OEB[1]
Luke 16:
16 The law and the prophets sufficed until the time of John. Since then the good news
of the kingdom of God has been told, and everybody has been forcing their way into
it.
17 It would be easier for the heavens and the earth to disappear than for one stroke of
a letter in the law to be lost.
Matthew 5
17 Do not think that I have come to do away with the law or the prophets; I have not
come to do away with them, but to complete them. 18 For I tell you, until the heavens
and the earth disappear, not even the smallest letter, nor one stroke of a letter, will
disappear from the law until all is done.
GWEB:
Luke 16:
16:16 The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the Good News of
the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 16:17 But it
is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tiny stroke of a pen in the
law to fall.
Matthew 5
5:17 "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to
destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away
from the law, until all things are accomplished.
While Jesus does not specify in those passages exactly how things will change, he clearly implies that
Yahweh exists, and also implicitly endorses Yahwehs actions from a moral perspective.
Moreover, when Jesus says that the law sufficed until the time of John, he is implying that following
the law was at the very least morally acceptable for people living under such law, in ancient Israelite
society.
Granted, different translations have different wordings, but in any case, it seems clear in context that he

was in fact implying such acceptability. Jesus never suggested that any of the ancient Israelites should
have disobeyed the law, or that the law was unjust. Yet, a decisive problem is that the only law
available to those ancient Israelites after Moses, and which Jesus was talking about, was the full set of
laws written in the Old Testament.
So, Jesuss claims imply, in context, that if some of those ancient Israelites stoned a woman to death for
having sex before marriage and marrying someone who didnt know about it regardless of whether
her marriage was forced, but even leaving that aside, Jesus's implication is false -, or burned a woman
to death because she was the daughter of a priest and was also a prostitute, or burned a man and two
women to death because he married them both and they were mother and daughter, etc., then they
didnt do anything immoral as long, at least, as they followed some procedure perhaps -, and that Old
Testament Law much of which was profoundly immoral was enough.
This shows that Jesus believed that some or rather many very immoral behaviors were morally
acceptable at least or even morally obligatory -, or that lied by deliberately making false moral
claims, or was unaware of much of what the Mosaic Law said. But based on the New Testament, we
can conclude he was at least reasonably knowledgeable about the content of the Old Testament in
general and Old Testament laws in particular, so it seems either Jesus had some false moral beliefs
many, but some is enough to make this point -, or was lying. Moreover, Jesus was promoting some
false moral beliefs as well.
Granted, that does not imply that Jesus would have been willing to engage in the immoral behaviors he
condoned and/or believed to be morally acceptable.
For example, it may well happen that a man fails to realize that punishment X established in code C is
very unjust, until he is in a position of having to decide whether or not to apply the punishment in
question. However, when he eventually is that position, he realizes based on an intuitive moral
assessment of the situation that applying punishment X would be morally unacceptable, and decides
not to apply it for that reason. In that case, he just failed to properly picture and assess the situation as a
hypothetical scenario, but made the proper assessment when it actually happened.
Also, for that matter, it may well be that a present-day Christian believes that it was morally acceptable
for any of the ancient Israelites to apply any of the punishments prescribed in the Old Testament if the
conditions established in it were met, but he has that belief because hes biased towards his religion,

and hes never done or ever would do anything nearly as immoral as the action of, say, an ancient
Israelite who actually participated in the stoning of a woman because he believed even if correctly
and based on sufficient evidence, in addition to the evidence required in the Old Testament that she
had consensual sex before being handed over to the man her father had pledged her to.
But the point is that Jesus had some false moral beliefs unless he was lying, and promoted a number of
them. All of that is incompatible with some usual and central Christian beliefs, like the conjunction of
the beliefs that Jesus never lied and never made a mistake in a moral assessment. In short, Jesus was
not morally perfect.
Objection 4.1.1.1. Jesus was a reformist. He didnt come to endorse the Mosaic Law, but to
change it. He even said that the a disposition in that law was given to the ancient Israelites
because their hearts were hard.
Reply:
a. While it is true that as always, according to the biblical description -, on one occasion, Jesus said
that a specific part of the law had been given to at least some of the ancient Israelites because of the
hardness of their hearts, he did not claim or imply that the same was true of other Old Testament legal
dispositions. Nor did he claim or imply that it would have been immoral for any of the ancient
Israelites to take advantage of the specific disposition in question, namely one that authorized some
type of divorce.
b. Even if all of the evil commands I considered earlier had been given to the ancient Israelites because
of the hardness of their hearts, that would still fail to provide any excuse for the actions of Yahweh,
as I explained in a previous section, or for the actions of Moses, or for the actions of those following
the commands.
In particular, if those evil commands had been given to the ancient Israelites because of the hardness of
their hearts, Yahweh would still have behaved immorally in giving them such orders. Also, Jesus
believed that Yahweh never acted immorally. If Jesus believed that Yahweh gave all of those commands
to those ancient Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts, Jesus should have concluded based on
that belief that Yahweh had acted immorally; his failure to conclude that would be a moral imperfection
on his part not an atrocity or anything like it, but a moral imperfection nonetheless.
Objection 4.1.1.2. Youre taking those passages out of context by focusing on the connection

between Jesus and the Old Testament, instead of taking into consideration all the good Jesus did,
as described in the Gospels.
Reply:
Im not taking anything out of context. Rather, Im considering the context, explaining some of Jesuss
positions on the Old Testament, and considering that Christianity claims or implies that Jesus is and
was always truthful, and had no false moral beliefs.
So, while other New Testament passages describe Jesus as doing good things, that does not affect the
point Im making here.
Objection 4.1.1.3. Given all the good that Jesus did, and given that hes the same being as
Yahweh, we can tell that Yahweh must have had some reasons for the commands he gave, for the
false moral claims or implications, and for other actions, even if we dont know what those
reasons were.
Reply:
a. The ancient Israelites who were in a position to decide whether to act in accordance to Old
Testament Law should have refrained from following many of Yahwehs commands, and surely its not
the case that they should have taken a look at Jesuss life to assess whether such commands were
justified, since Jesus hadnt even been born when those ancient Israelites lived.
Yet, Jesus claims that the Law sufficed until John, which is a false claim. The law hes talking about is
contained in the Old Testament, and commanded many immoral behaviors, while failed to command
many morally obligatory ones.
b. In any case, what is proposed in this objection would be an improper way of assessing the evidence.
We ought to take a look at all of the description, concluding that if Jesus is the same being as Yahweh,
then he is a profoundly evil being, even if he also did good things a number of times.
People like Hafez Al-Assad, Augusto Pinochet, or Jorge Rafael Videla, very probably did at least a few
good things sometimes during their lives, but they were all bad persons.
c. Given the extent of the atrocities committed by Yahweh and by his servant Moses, the claim of
mysterious reasons appears even more obviously unreasonable if possible.
d. In some cases, the rationale behind his actions is actually explained in the Bible, and his actions are
clearly not justified based on the rationale in question, as the previous sections show.

Objection 4.1.1.4. There is no immorality in Mosaic Law, or in any of the actions carried out by
Yahweh or by Moses, as described in the Old Testament.
Reply:
Thats not true. I already assessed that matter earlier.
Objection 4.1.1.5. The passages of the Old Testament that you quoted earlier are not true.
Yahweh did not command or do any of that.
Reply:
Jesus clearly implied that following Old Testament Law which included those passages was morally
acceptable, at least for the ancient Israelites living under such law.
Objection 4.1.1.6. The passages of the Old Testament in which Yahweh appears to command
moral atrocities, are not true. Yahweh did not command any of the atrocities in question. In fact,
Jesus implicitly indicated that those passages were not true when he said that the greatest
commandment is to love Yahweh who is God with all of ones heart, mind, soul and strength,
and the second commandment is to love ones neighbor as one loves oneself.
Reply:
a. Yahweh is not God, since Yahweh is not morally good, let alone morally perfect.
b. I will address the two commandments in question later, but for now, briefly, while surely not nearly
as bad as much of the content of the New Testament, in both cases Jesus claims or implies that people
have moral obligations that they do not have. That promotion of those false moral beliefs results in
false accusations of immorality against people who have done nothing wrong.
c. That Jesus said that those two were the greatest and the second commandments respectively does not
suggest that he was implicitly indicating that some of the other commands in the Old Testament were
falsely attributed to Yahweh.
In fact, given the rest of the New Testament e.g., the passages quoted above in this subsection, and
passages I will analyze later in this section -, its clear that he did not implicitly indicated that Yahweh
did not command the atrocities the Old Testament commands. Quite the opposite; he endorsed
repeatedly the Old Testament.
d. In the Old Testament, the following command is given:
GWEB:

Deuteronomy 6.
4 Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God. Yahweh is one. 5 You shall love Yahweh your God with all
your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.
So, Jesuss so-called greatest commandment was actually included in Deuteronomy, alongside many
abhorrent commands.
Given the context in which Jesus was citing the command namely, talking to people who believed
that commands to stone women to death, etc., came from Yahweh -, in context there is no reason to
think that Jesus was in any way suggesting that the passages in question were not from Yahweh.
So, if he meant to suggest that such commands were not from Yahweh, he clearly failed to make his
point in any way that might be understood by his interlocutors.
e. Also in the Old Testament, the following command is given:
GWEB:
Leviticus 19:
18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but
you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh.
So, Jesuss second commandment was actually included in Leviticus, alongside many abhorrent
commands. In fact, even in the same chapter of Leviticus, and very close to the command about loving
ones neighbor, there is the following command:
Leviticus 19: [1]
19:20 "'If a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave girl, pledged to be married to another
man, and not ransomed, or given her freedom; they shall be punished. They shall not be put to
death, because she was not free. 19:21 He shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, to the door
of the Tent of Meeting, even a ram for a trespass offering. 19:22 The priest shall make atonement
for him with the ram of the trespass offering before Yahweh for his sin which he has committed:
and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.
While the punishment here is not as immoral as the punishments established in several other passages I
addressed earlier, its still unjust to punish them. Moreover, this passage implicitly condones the sale of
women for money, regardless of consent.
In addition to that, its implicit that if the woman is free - free as women might be in ancient Israelite

society, that is; the father can still decide to hand her over to a man of his choice -, then the command is
to execute her and her lover if they have premarital sex which is in line with the punishments
imposed in Deuteronomy, and also morally abhorrent.
It was a common belief among Jewish people of the time of Jesus that Yahweh had commanded that
people love their neighbors as they love themselves, and also that he had commanded that, say, a
woman be stoned to death for having premarital sex after being pledged to a man.
Given that context, there is no good reason to think that Jesus was in any way suggesting that the
atrocious commands in question had not been commanded by Yahweh when he just identified two of
Yahwehs commandments and said those two were the greatest and the second.
So, if Jesus meant to suggest that the morally abhorrent commands were not from Yahweh, he clearly
failed to make his point in any way that might be understood by his interlocutors. A far more probable
interpretation based on his words and context is that Jesus simply failed to realize how immoral many
of Yahwehs commands were.
f. In any case, Jesus made a false moral claim or implication by implying that people had a moral
obligation to love Yahweh and to love their neighbors as they love themselves. I will address the matter
later.
Objection 4.1.1.7. Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to love Yahweh who is God
with all of ones heart, mind, soul and strength, and the second commandment is to love ones
neighbor as one loves oneself. In Matthew 22:40, Jesus said that the whole law depends on those
two commandments. Its clear that a law that depends on those two commandments cannot
contain commands to commit moral atrocities. Even if Jesuss interlocutors and/or his disciples
did not realize that at the time, there is an incompatibility between those two commandments and
the atrocities listed in the Old Testament as part of Yahwehs law, so Jesus did imply that much of
the law contained in the Old Testament is not from Yahweh.
Reply:
a. Yahweh is not God, since Yahweh is not morally good, let alone morally perfect.
b. There is no incompatibility between a command to love Yahweh and a command to commit
atrocities against some humans.
c. Jesus does not clarify who counts as a neighbor, and surely his interlocutors would not have

understood him as including (as neighbors) those to be stoned, burned or generally put to death in
accordance to the Old Testament. Jesus did not clarify otherwise, so there was no good reason in
context for his interlocutors to understand the concept of neighbor to refer to those as well.
Incidentally, most of Jesuss interlocutors had not seen him protect a woman who had allegedly
committed adultery. But even in that case, he did not suggest that they should love her as they love
themselves.
d. In any event, both the command to love Yahweh and the command to love ones neighbor as one
loves oneself are included in the Old Testament, alongside abhorrent commands, as indicated above.
So, if there is some incompatibility between those commands and some other commands, then Old
Testament Law was already inconsistent, and Jesuss interlocutors who were familiar with that law
had no idea that it was inconsistent, and neither did the writers of the Old Testament or, for that
matter, neither would the writers of the New Testament later.
But given that Jesus did not say it was inconsistent, there seem to be no good reason to think that he
knew it was inconsistent. One would expect Jesus to clarify if he knew that, given the paramount
importance of such matters his interlocutors believed that those atrocities were morally good, and
sometimes even morally obligatory!
e. In any case, if Jesus actually gave those two commandments, he implied that it was immoral not to
love Yahweh, or not to love ones neighbor as one loves oneself. But that is not true, and so he was still
making false moral claims or implications. I will address the two commandments in question in more
detail later.
Objection 4.1.1.8. Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to love Yahweh who is God
with all of ones heart, mind, soul and strength, and the second commandment is to love ones
neighbor as one loves oneself. In Matthew 22:40, Jesus said that the whole law depends on those
two commandments. Its clear that a law that depends on those two commandments cannot
contain commands to commit moral atrocities. Even if Jesuss interlocutors and/or his disciples
did not realize that at the time, there is an incompatibility between those two commandments and
the atrocities listed in the Old Testament as part of Yahwehs law, so Jesuss did imply that much
of the law contained in the Old Testament is not from Yahweh.
Moreover, Jesus said that he did not come to change the Law, and also was against stoning an

adulteress. So, Jesus clearly implied that the Law did not contain any commands to stone women
for adultery in the first place. Similarly, given the context of Jesuss ministry, we should conclude
that all of the commands involving stoning and/or burning people to death for sex outside
marriage, gay sex, etc., were not from Yahweh who is God.
Also, loving God is incompatible with carrying out such commands, and Jesus commandment is
to love God incidentally he did not say Yahweh, but God.
Reply:
a. Given many of the contexts in which Jesus was speaking, if he did not believe that Yahweh was the
author of many legal dispositions in the Old Testament, and if he realized how unjust those dispositions
were, one would have expected him to say something, and make it clear that much of the law contained
in the Old Testament was deeply unjust and ought to be rejected, especially considering that Jesus,
according to the Gospel, did not seem to refrain from challenging common views when he disagreed.
In fact, Jesus was trying to give moral lessons, and both his disciples and at least nearly all other Jews
of the time were very mistaken about the morality of Old Testament Law, failing to realize that it was,
overall, a very unjust legal code, containing many morally abhorrent commands. So, if Jesus had
known how unjust many of the dispositions in the Old Testament were, he probably would have said
so, saying for instance that Yahwehs will had been misrepresented.
b. Generally, the interpretation outlined in this objection overlooks much of the New Testament and its
connections to the Old Testament. I will give evidence against this kind of objection and similar ones in
the rest of this section and the next one, by pointing to several of those connections.
c. If one assumes, for the sake of the argument, that Jesus intended to convey that much of the law
contained in the Old Testament was not from Yahweh and was actually unjust, then his method was
clearly a particularly bad one. He just needed to say so. He did not, and the vast majority of Christian
denominations, leaders and adherents came to believe that all of the appalling legal dispositions
contained in the Old Testament were actually good, just laws for ancient Israel, given to them by
Yahweh.
Incidentally, most of Jesuss interlocutors had not seen him protect a woman who had allegedly
committed adultery. But even in that case, he did not suggest that they should love her as they love
themselves though that would be false, anyway, as I will argue later.

d. On the incidental point, its true that biblical translations above translate Jesuss words as saying
God, rather than Yahweh. However, he was talking to interlocutors that would have interpreted that
passage in the context of the Old Testament, and in particular of Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and who surely
were not familiar with later Christian theology, modern philosophy of religion, etc., so they would
probably have understood his words as a commandment to love Yahweh, not as a commandment to
love God in a sense of the word God used in modern philosophy.
e. On the issue of loving Yahweh and allegedly unchanging laws, lets say that Joseph was a Rabbi born
100 years before Jesus was born, and who died aged 70. So, Joseph did not have access to Jesuss
commandments, and all he knew about Yahweh was what was contained in the Old Testament which
he studied thoroughly, reflecting on the events described and claims made therein, etc.
Then, clearly, Joseph should not have followed many of the commands if he found himself in the
situations specified in them, and should have realized upon reflection that the Old Testament depicted
the behavior of a moral monster a non-existent one, but lets leave that part aside for the sake of the
argument.
In particular, its intuitively clear that Joseph had no moral obligation to love Yahweh.
f. In any case, if Jesus actually gave those two commandments, he implied that it was immoral not to
love Yahweh, and not to love ones neighbor as one loves oneself. So, he was promoting at least some
false moral beliefs. I will address the two commandments in question in more detail later, when I deal
with liberal Christianity from another perspective.
4.1.2. Some curses. [14]
OEB[1]
Mark 7: 1 One day the Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come
from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus. 2 They had noticed that some of his disciples
ate their food with their hands defiled, by which they meant unwashed. 3 (For the
Pharisees, and indeed all strict Jews, will not eat without first scrupulously washing
their hands, holding in this to the traditions of their ancestors. 4 When they come
from market, they will not eat without first sprinkling themselves; and there are many
other customs which they have inherited and hold to, such as the ceremonial washing
of cups, and jugs, and copper pans). 5 So the Pharisees and the teachers of the law

asked Jesus this question How is it that your disciples do not follow the traditions
of our ancestors, but eat their food with defiled hands? 6 His answer was: It was
well said by Isaiah when he prophesied about you hypocrites in the words This is
a people who honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far removed from me; 7
but vainly do they worship me, For they teach but human precepts. 8 You neglect
Gods commandments and hold to human traditions. 9 Wisely do you set aside Gods
commandments, he exclaimed, to keep your own traditions! 10 For while Moses
said Honor your father and your mother, and Let anyone who abuses their father or
mother suffer death, 11 you say If a person says to their father or mother Whatever
of mine might have been of service to you is Korban (which means Given to God)
12 why, then you do not allow them to do anything further for their father or
mother! 13 In this way you nullify the words of God by your traditions, which you
hand down; and you do many similar things.
GWEB:
Mark 7:
7:1 Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having
come from Jerusalem. 7:2 Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread
with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all
the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition
of the elders. 7:4 They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they
bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold
to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) 7:5 The Pharisees and
the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of
the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" 7:6 He answered them, "Well
did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with
their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7:7 But in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'* 7:8 "For you set aside the
commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men--the washing of
pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things." 7:9 He said to them, "Full

well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 7:10
For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;'* and, 'He who speaks evil of
father or mother, let him be put to death.'* 7:11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father
or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to
say, given to God;"' 7:12 then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or
his mother, 7:13 making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have
handed down. You do many things like this."
In this passage, we can tell the following:
i. Jesus charges the Pharisees with hypocrisy for ignoring Yahwehs commands, and uses one of
Moses commands in the Old Testament as an example of one of the many commands that the
Pharisees were failing to abide by.
However, Jesus does not say or suggest, at any point, that some of the commands in the Old
Testament were not really from Yahweh let alone that the Pharisees ought not to follow some of
them. Rather, the accusation against them was of failing to follow Yahwehs commands while
accusing him, and being hypocrites because of it, without raising any issues about the
authenticity of the source.
ii. In addition to that, Jesus endorses a specific command as coming from Yahweh, namely one in
which the death penalty is established for apparently cursing ones parents. Moreover, Jesus
accuses the Pharisees of using a far more lenient punishment instead.
In context, this further supports the view that Jesus believed that the commands were all from Yahweh,
and implied that neither was it immoral for Yahweh to give such commands, nor was it immoral for the
ancient Israelites to follow them. But Yahweh behaved immorally by giving many of those commands
if he gave them, and the people obeying them were also behaving immorally by doing so.
Objection 4.1.2.1. Jesus was talking about the death penalty for some curses, and nothing else.
One shouldnt interpret from those words that he believed that any other commands also came
from Yahweh.
Reply:
Leaving aside the issue of the morality of the death penalty for that kind of curses, context indicates
otherwise. Considering also other passages, it seems that the text strongly supports the view that he

believed that all of those commands were in fact Yahwehs commands.

4.1.3. The Transfiguration.
Lets take a look at the transfiguration of Jesus, as described in the Gospel of Mark:
OEB[1]
Mark 9
2 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John, and led them up a high
mountain alone by themselves. There his appearance was transformed before their
eyes,
3 and his clothes became of a more dazzling white than any bleacher in the world
could make them.
4 And Elijah appeared to them, in company with Moses; and they were talking with
Jesus.
5 Rabbi, said Peter, interposing, it is good to be here; let us make three tents, one
for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
6 For he did not know what to say, because they were much afraid.
7 Then a cloud came down and enveloped them; and from the cloud there came a
voice This is my dearly loved son; listen to him.
8 And suddenly, on looking around, they saw that there was now no one with them
but Jesus alone.
GWEB:
Mark 9
9:2 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John, and brought them up
onto a high mountain privately by themselves, and he was changed into another form
in front of them. 9:3 His clothing became glistening, exceedingly white, like snow,
such as no launderer on earth can whiten them. 9:4 Elijah and Moses appeared to
them, and they were talking with Jesus. 9:5 Peter answered Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good
for us to be here. Let's make three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for
Elijah." 9:6 For he didn't know what to say, for they were very afraid. 9:7 A cloud
came, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, "This is my beloved

Son. Listen to him." 9:8 Suddenly looking around, they saw no one with them any
more, except Jesus only.
So, we can tell that:
i. Jesus is talking to Moses, but its obvious that Jesus is not condemning Moses for the evil
commands he issued and/or the false moral claims or implications he made. Rather, this passage
actually only stresses the links between the Old and the New Testaments, and particularly
between Moses and Jesus.
ii. In context, the voice coming from the cloud is unmistakably that of Yahweh. If the proper
interpretation of the text is that there is a trinity, then more precisely, the voice is that of the first
person of Yahweh.
However, Jesus neither condemns Yahweh or the first person of Yahweh for the atrocities he
committed, nor claims that Moses committed those atrocities on his own and falsely attributed
them to Yahweh, nor condemns Moses in any way.
iii. Here Yahweh himself or the first person endorses Jesus as well, and utters no word of
condemnation against Moses for the atrocities he (i.e., Moses) commanded in Yahwehs name,
further implying that Moses was indeed following Yahwehs orders when he issued all of those
commands how else should Jesuss disciples interpret the presence of Moses, whom they
associated with Old Testament Law?
Yet, Yahweh, as described in the Old Testament, was a moral monster as explained earlier -, and in
particular, many of his commands were immoral.
As for Moses, he was a man who willingly relayed commands like the command to stone a woman to
death if she has sex before being handed over to the man her father chose to hand her over to, the
command to stone a drunkard, glutton, disobedient son to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and so on. If
we go by the biblical description, Moses did not just had some false moral beliefs about what other
people did. He actually gave the commands, and willingly so. So, Moses was evil as well. And Jesus
does nothing to suggest that.
Objection 4.1.3.1. The passage of the transfiguration is allegorical. It didnt really happen, and
the New Testament does not claim it happened.
Reply:

a. There seems to be no textual support for that interpretation.

b. If the transfiguration itself was not meant to be taken literally, its unmistakable that it is meant to
connect Jesus with Yahweh, Moses and Elijah. In particular, it shows that:
i. Jesus endorsed the actions of Yahweh, as described in the Old Testament, and believed or
implied that Yahweh was morally good.
ii. Jesus endorsed the actions of Moses, as described in the Old Testament, when those actions are
approved of in the Old Testament.
Thats enough to show that Jesus was not morally perfect.
4.1.4. Jesus, Yahweh and the Ten Commandments.
OEB[1]
Matthew 19:16 A man came up to Jesus, and said: Teacher, what good thing must I
do to obtain eternal life?
Matthew 19:17 Why ask me about goodness? answered Jesus. There is but One
who is good. If you want to enter the life, keep the commandments.
GWEB:
Matthew 19:16 Behold, one came to him and said, Good teacher, what good thing
shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Matthew 19:17 He said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good but one,
that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
Then Jesus went on to explain those commandments, though it seems he forgot to include a number of
exceptions if he meant that behaving according to them was morally obligatory, since sometimes for
instance its morally acceptable to kill (e.g., in self-defense, in some cases in war, etc.), or to lie (e.g.,
in most cases it would be acceptable to lie to the agents of an oppressive government in order to hide a
person theyre trying to arrest and torture just because she wrote an article speaking out against
government abuse, etc.).
On the other hand, if Jesus was setting conditions for salvation, that would mean salvation is based on
deeds, at least partially, which is a problem for many versions of Christianity.
But those issues arent what Im trying to get at here, so we may set them aside.
Rather, the point Id like to stress is that Jesus claims that Yahweh is morally good. In context, the One

who is good is an obvious reference to Yahweh.

Since as we saw in earlier sections Yahweh is not morally good, Jesus had false moral beliefs, or
lied, or both.
Objection 4.1.4.1. The immoral commands in the Old Testament were not given by Yahweh.
Yahweh is morally good, and Jesus made a true claim.
Reply:
Lets consider the context:
a. Jesus was talking to people who believed that Yahweh was morally good, but also believed he had
issued the abhorrent commands that I quoted earlier, as well as many other abhorrent commands but
they failed to realize they were abhorrent.
b. In context, a reasonable person talking to Jesus would have understood his claims as supporting the
moral goodness of Yahweh, as described in the Old Testament, which was considered historically
accurate by Jesuss interlocutors. Yet, Jesus did not state that Yahweh did not issue those commands, or
even made any suggestions to that effect, which we should expect if Jesus believed that the commands
in question did not come from Yahweh.
So, it seems that Jesus believe that those atrocious commands came indeed from Yahweh, but Jesus
failed to realize that they were atrocious.
4.1.5. After Jesuss resurrection.
The connection between Jesus, Yahweh and Moses is also clearly shown in other passages. For
instance, in a passage in which Jesus, after resurrecting, talks to some of his disciples:
OEB[1]
Luke 24
25 Then Jesus said to them: Foolish men, slow to accept all that the prophets have
said!
26 Was not the Christ bound to undergo this suffering before entering into his glory?
27 Then, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them all through
the scriptures the passages that referred to himself.
28 When they got near the village to which they were walking, Jesus appeared to be
going further;

29 but they pressed him not to do so. Stay with us, they said, for it is getting
towards evening, and the sun in already low. So Jesus went in to stay with them.
30 After he had taken his place at the table with them, he took the bread and said the
blessing, and broke it, and gave it to them.
31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him; but he disappeared from
their sight.
GWEB:
Luke 24
24:25 He said to them, "Foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the
prophets have spoken! 24:26 Didn't the Christ have to suffer these things and to enter
into his glory?" 24:27 Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained
to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. 24:28 They drew near to
the village, where they were going, and he acted like he would go further. 24:29 They
urged him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is almost evening, and the day is almost over."
He went in to stay with them. 24:30 It happened, that when he had sat down at the
table with them, he took the bread and gave thanks. Breaking it, he gave to them.
24:31 Their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he vanished out of their
sight.
While its true that Jesus was trying to explain to them the connection between the prophecies in the
Old Testament and his own life, death and resurrection, the fact is that he knew his disciples believed
that all of the Old Testament was true, including the attribution of Old Testament Law in its entirety to
Yahweh. Yet, Jesus didnt say to his disciples that while they should accept everything attributed to the
prophets in the context of Old Testament prophecy, other claims attributed to those prophets, to Yahweh
and to other followers of Yahweh described in the Old Testament, were false.
In that context, saying that they would be foolish for not accepting all that the prophets have spoken
would only have reinforced their false beliefs, in case many of the legal dispositions in the Old
Testament did not come from Yahweh.
4.2. Paul and the Old Testament.
In this subsection, I will address passages in the New Testament in which Paul cites or otherwise refers

to the Old Testament. I will consider both some of Pauls writings and the New Testament, and other
writings in the New Testament that describe some of Pauls actions.
The pattern that emerges is as follows:
i. In his writings, as well as in words attributed to him in the New Testament, Paul explicitly
accepts the historical accuracy of several parts of the Old Testament he refers to, including
Yahwehs authorship of many Old Testament legal dispositions.
ii. There is no suggestion whatsoever that Paul realized that much of the Old Testament, or indeed
any of it, consisted of false moral claims or implications, and depictions of immoral actions by
Yahweh.
iii. In particular, even when Paul knew he was talking to people who believed in the historicity of
claims like Yahwehs actions in Egypt or Canaan, and also believed that Yahweh was the author
of Old Testament Law (as described in the Old Testament), Paul did not denounce those Old
Testament passages, or even hinted that there might be any problem at all, despite the moral
atrocities described in them as commanded or executed by Yahweh.
Given all of that, based on the New Testament we may conclude that Paul believed that all of the
Mosaic Law came from Yahweh, and also believed in the historicity of all of the events described in the
Old Testament and that I addressed earlier in this moral case, as well as many other events described in
the Old Testament.
Yet, according to the New Testament, Paul was chosen by Jesus to be his vessel to take his teachings to
other nations, and to Jews as well (Acts 9). In other words, Paul was chosen as a moral teacher.
So, Pauls failure to recognize moral atrocities, and the fact that he promoted false moral beliefs like
the belief that some of the immoral actions depicted in the Old Testament were not immoral -, provides
good evidence that Jesus too was very mistaken, or was very inept at delivering his message, or both.
4.2.1. Paul and Old Testament Law.
In this subsection, I will address some of Pauls claims and implications about Old Testament Law,
either in Pauls own writings, or in other parts of the New Testament.
4.2.1.1. Acts 24.
In Acts 24, Paul is brought before Governor Felix, to respond to a number of accusations.
Among other things, Paul says:

GWEB:
Acts 24:
24:14 But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, so I serve
the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which
are written in the prophets; 24:15 having hope toward God, which these also
themselves look for, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and
unjust.
OEB[1]
Acts 24:
14 This, however, I do acknowledge to you, that it is as a believer in the cause which
they call heretical, that I worship the God of my ancestors. At the same time, I believe
everything that is in accordance with the law and that is written in the prophets; 15
and I have a hope that rests in God a hope which they also cherish that there
will one day be a resurrection of good and bad alike.
Assuming that the New Testament account is accurate, here Paul unmistakably endorses Old Testament
Law in its entirety. While Paul did not believe that all of those laws and regulations applied to the
Gentiles, in this passage he makes it clear that he believed that Yahweh gave the law to the ancient
Israelites.
Unless Paul was lying, he was confused, failing to see that the Old Testament described the actions of a
moral monster, and that those following some of the commands contained in Old Testament Law would
have been acting immorally.
Granted, Paul might have been lying to improve his chances of being released, but there is no textual
evidence of that. On the contrary, the context of the text suggests Paul was being honest.
Objection 4.2.1.1.1. The Acts of the Apostles provides no good evidence of what Paul believed.
After all, Paul didnt write it, and the writer of Acts did not have good information about Pauls
life.
Reply:
That would imply that some of the events depicted in the New Testament did not happen, and the New
Testament makes some false claims about Paul.

4.2.1.2. Acts 28.

Acts 28:23 describes how Paul was trying to persuade some Jewish people.
GWEB:
Acts 28:
23 When they had appointed him a day, many people came to him at his lodging. He
explained to them, testifying about Gods Kingdom, and persuading them concerning
Jesus, both from the law of Moses and from the prophets, from morning until
evening.
OEB[1]
Acts 28:
23 They then fixed a day with him, and came to the place where he was staying, in
even larger numbers, when Paul proceeded to lay the subject before them. He bore his
testimony to the kingdom of God, and tried to convince them about Jesus, by
arguments drawn from the law of Moses and from the prophets speaking from
morning until evening.
Here, Paul is making arguments based on the Old Testament, including Mosaic Law. There is no hint
that Paul realized how immoral that law was, overall, or even that it contained a single immoral
command. On the contrary, Paul seems to believe that there was nothing immoral in that law, and in
any case, he's using it to persuade people who believed that the law in question was just, without telling
them it was overall deeply unjust, given some of the appalling dispositions it contained.
4.2.1.3. Romans 2 and 3.
Romans 2 and 3 contain more claims made by Paul with respect to the Old Testament, and in particular,
Old Testament Law, such as:
GWEB:
Romans 2:
2:13 For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of
the law will be justified 2:14 (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature
the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, 2:15 in that
they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with

them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 2:16 in
the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by
Jesus Christ.
OEB[1]
Romans 2:
13 It is not those who hear the words of a law that are righteous before God, but it is
those who obey it that will be pronounced righteous. 14 When Gentiles, who have no
law, do instinctively what the law requires, they, though they have no law, are a law to
themselves; 15 for they show the demands of the law written on their hearts; their
consciences corroborating it, while in their thoughts they argue either in selfaccusation or, it may be, in self-defense 16 on the day when God passes judgment
on peoples inmost lives, as the good news that I tell declares that he will do through
Christ Jesus.
GWEB:
Romans 3:
3:19 Now we know that whatever things the law says, it speaks to those who are
under the law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may be brought
under the judgment of God. 3:20 Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be
justified in his sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now
apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the
law and the prophets; 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus
Christ to all and on all those who believe. For there is no distinction, 3:23 for all have
sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:
19 Now we know that everything said in the law is addressed to those who are under
its authority, in order that every mouth may be closed, and to bring the whole world
under Gods judgment. 20 For no human being will be pronounced righteous before
God as the result of obedience to law; for it is law that shows what sin is.
21 But now, quite apart from law, the divine righteousness stands revealed, and to it

the law and the prophets bear witness 22 the divine righteousness which is
bestowed, through faith in Jesus Christ, on all, without distinction, who believe in
him.
It is apparent in context that, while Paul is preaching to Gentiles and saying that Yahweh makes no
distinction in a number of senses, Paul also makes it clear that he believes that the everything said in
the law written in the Old Testament is indeed the law given to the ancient Israelites by Yahweh.
As before, there is no indication whatsoever that Paul realized that Old Testament Law contained any
evil dispositions, or that Yahweh was a moral monster if Yahweh was the author of that law.
4.2.1.4. Romans 7.
Romans 7 also contains a number of Pauls claims about Old Testament Laws, and about Jesus. While
much of what he says is those passages is obscure at best, some of his claims are clear enough. That
includes the claims that Old Testament Law was from Yahweh, and that it was entirely good and just, as
one can see in the following passages:
GWEB:
Romans 7:
7:1 Or don't you know, brothers (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law
has dominion over a man for as long as he lives? 7:2 For the woman that has a
husband is bound by law to the husband while he lives, but if the husband dies, she is
discharged from the law of the husband. 7:3 So then if, while the husband lives, she is
joined to another man, she would be called an adulteress. But if the husband dies, she
is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she is joined to another man.
7:4 Therefore, my brothers, you also were made dead to the law through the body of
Christ, that you would be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, that
we might bring forth fruit to God. 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful
passions which were through the law, worked in our members to bring forth fruit to
death. 7:6 But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in
which we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of
the letter. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I
wouldn't have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn't have known

coveting, unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."* 7:8 But sin, finding
occasion through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of coveting. For apart
from the law, sin is dead. 7:9 I was alive apart from the law once, but when the
commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 7:10 The commandment, which was for
life, this I found to be for death; 7:11 for sin, finding occasion through the
commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me. 7:12 Therefore the law indeed
is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good. 7:13 Did then that
which is good become death to me? May it never be! But sin, that it might be shown
to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; that through the
commandment sin might become exceeding sinful. 7:14 For we know that the law is
spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. 7:15 For I don't know what I am doing. For
I don't practice what I desire to do; but what I hate, that I do. 7:16 But if what I don't
desire, that I do, I consent to the law that it is good. 7:17 So now it is no more I that
do it, but sin which dwells in me. 7:18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh,
dwells no good thing. For desire is present with me, but I don't find it doing that
which is good. 7:19 For the good which I desire, I don't do; but the evil which I don't
desire, that I practice. 7:20 But if what I don't desire, that I do, it is no more I that do
it, but sin which dwells in me. 7:21 I find then the law, that, to me, while I desire to
do good, evil is present. 7:22 For I delight in God's law after the inward man, 7:23 but
I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and
bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. 7:24 What a
wretched man I am! Who will deliver me out of the body of this death? 7:25 I thank
God through Jesus Christ, our Lord! So then with the mind, I myself serve God's law,
but with the flesh, the sin's law.
OEB[1]
Romans 7:
1 Surely, friends, you know (for I am speaking to people who know what Law means)
that Law has power over a person only as long as they lives. 2 For example, by law a
married woman is bound to her husband while he is living; but, if her husband dies,

she is set free from the law that bound her to him. 3 If, then, during her husbands
lifetime, she unites herself to another man, she will be called an adulteress; but, if her
husband dies, the law has no further hold on her, nor, if she unites herself to another
man, is she an adulteress. 4 And so with you, my friends; as far as the Law was
concerned, you underwent death in the crucified body of the Christ, so that you might
be united to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that our lives
might bear fruit for God. 5 When we were living merely earthly lives, our sinful
passions, aroused by the Law, were active in every part of our bodies, with the result
that our lives bore fruit for death. 6 But now we are set free from the Law, because
we are dead to that which once kept us under restraint; and so we serve under new,
spiritual conditions, and not under old, written regulations.
7 What are we to say, then? That Law and sin are the same thing? Heaven forbid! On
the contrary, I should not have learned what sin is, had not it been for Law. If the Law
did not say You must not covet, I should not know what it is to covet. 8 But sin took
advantage of the Commandment to arouse in me every form of covetousness, for
where there is no consciousness of Law sin shows no sign of life. 9 There was a time
when I myself, unconscious of Law, was alive; but when the Commandment was
brought home to me, sin sprang into life, while I died! 10 The Commandment that
should have meant life I found to result in death! 11 sin took advantage of the
Commandment to deceive me, and used it to bring about my death. 12 And so the
Law is holy, and each Commandment is also holy, and just, and good. 13 Did, then, a
thing, which in itself was good, involve death in my case? Heaven forbid! It was sin
that involved death; so that, by its use of what I regarded as good to bring about my
death, its true nature might appear; and in this way the Commandment showed how
intensely sinful sin is. 14 We know that the Law is spiritual, but I am earthly sold
into slavery to sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I am so far from
habitually doing what I want to do, that I find myself doing the thing that I hate. 16
But when I do what I want not to do, I am admitting that the Law is right. 17 This
being so, the action is no longer my own, but is done by the sin which is within me.

18 I know that there is nothing good in me I mean in my earthly nature. For,

although it is easy for me to want to do right, to act rightly is not easy. 19 I fail to do
the good thing that I want to do, but the bad thing that I want not to do that I
habitually do. 20 But, when I do the thing that I want not to do, the action is no longer
my own, but is done by the sin which is within me. 21 This, then, is the law that I find
when I want to do right, wrong presents itself! 22 At heart I delight in the Law of
God; 23 but throughout my body I see a different law, one which is in conflict with
the law accepted by my reason, and which endeavors to make me a prisoner to that
law of sin which exists throughout my body. 24 Miserable man that I am! Who will
deliver me from the body that is bringing me to this death? 25 Thank God, there is
deliverance through Jesus Christ, our Lord! Well then, for myself, with my reason I
serve the Law of God, but with my earthly nature the Law of sin.
So, while much of that is obscure, in Romans 7:12 Paul states that the law is holy, and that every
commandment is holy, just and good. As I pointed out earlier in this essay, it is not true that all of the
legal dispositions in the Old Testament are good or just. In fact, some are profoundly unjust, and
following them would have been very immoral. But Paul, in Romans 7, fails to realize that as he
consistently fails to realize that throughout his writings.
Additionally, he clearly identifies Yahweh as the author of Old Testament Law.
Objection 4.2.1.4.1. Paul was actually saying that Christians were not under the Law. They were
free from it. It would be a twist of his words to suggest that he supports Old Testament Law.
Reply:
Im not saying or uggesting that Paul was saying that Old Testament Law was applicable to him, or to
the people he was talking to. Im not even saying or suggesting that he was saying that Old Testament
Law was applicable to anyone after the coming of Jesus. Much of what he says is obscure, but in any
case, applicability at the time he was speaking is beside the point Im making in this subsection.
The basic point Im making in this subsection is as follows:
In Romans 7, claims that Old Testament Law was from Yahweh, and that it was entirely good and just
- at least, as a law for the people from the time of Moses up to the time of Jesus. But as I pointed out
earlier in this essay, it is not true that all of the legal dispositions in the Old Testament are good or just.

Some are profoundly unjust, and following them would have been very immoral.
Objection 4.2.1.4.2. Paul was talking about the parts of Old Testament Law that came indeed
from Yahweh. But many others didnt. Paul did not endorse those.
Reply:
There is no textual support for that. On the contrary, context decisively support that he endorsed all of
Old Testament Law. Thats clear by several reasons, some of which Ive been pointing out through this
essay, but for example:
a. Paul says that every Commandment is holy. In context, hes talking about Old Testament Law.
b. Paul was talking to people who believed that all of the law in the Old Testament was from Yahweh.
But he made no indication that some of it was not.
c. Other passages in the New Testament also show Paul believed that all of the law in the Old
Testament was good, just, and from Yahweh, such as passages in Romans 2 and 3.
d. While Paul did not write the Acts of the Apostles, the fact is that the book in question is also part of
the New Testament, and also holds that Paul believed that all of the law in the Old Testament was from
Yahweh, and was also good and just.
Objection 4.2.1.4.3. Pauls moral mistakes are not a problem for Christianity, since Christianity
does not claim that Paul was morally infallible, either in ascertaining moral truth, or in behaving
in a morally acceptable manner.
Reply:
According to the New Testament, Paul was chosen by Jesus to be his vessel to take his teachings to
other nations, and to Jews as well (Acts 9).
Pauls words in Romans 7 were one of the ways in which Paul was taking Jesuss teachings to the
intended audience. Moreover, those words made it into the New Testament, and by that means, it
reached people all over the world, for many centuries, spreading both historical and moral confusion.
Jesus could have easily corrected that. But he did not, even though he was willing to intervene and tell
some people like Saul/Paul to carry out his teachings.
4.2.1.5 1 Corinthians 9.
In 1 Corinthians 9:9, Paul cites Deuteronomy 25:4, clearly accepting it as coming from Yahweh. There
is no suggestion in the text that Paul rejected other parts of the law contained in Deuteronomy as not

coming from Yahweh.

Someone might say that Paul wasnt interesting in clarifying that point in the context of 1 Corinthians
9:9, but the fact is that there is a crystal clear pattern in Pauls writings in the New Testament, namely
that whenever Paul refers to some Old Testament legal dispositions, he accepts those dispositions as
coming from Yahweh, and whenever he refers to Old Testament passages describing any actions of
Yahweh, Paul accepts them as historical. This is so even when he knows that some or all of the people
hes talking to accept the entire Old Testament Law as coming from Yahweh, and the events described
in it and which I addressed earlier (among many others) as historical.
If Paul wanted to correct moral errors and he had realized that the Old Testament depicted Yahweh as a
moral monster claiming he was good, but still depicting the actions of a moral monster -, one would
have expected his writings to be very different from what they are.
4.2.1.6. Galatians 3.
In the letter to the Galatians, Paul asserts that no one is justified by the works of Old Testament Law,
but by faith. Yet, Paul also makes it clear that Old Testament Law came from Yahweh.
GWEB:
Galatians 3:
3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed
should come to whom the promise has been made. It was ordained through angels by
the hand of a mediator. 3:20 Now a mediator is not between one, but God is one. 3:21
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a
law given which could make alive, most certainly righteousness would have been of
the law. 3:22 But the Scriptures imprisoned all things under sin, that the promise by
faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 3:23 But before faith came,
we were kept in custody under the law, confined for the faith which should afterwards
be revealed. 3:24 So that the law has become our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we
might be justified by faith.
OEB[1]
Galatians 3:
19 What, then, you ask, was the use of the law? It was a later addition, to make

people conscious of their wrong-doings, and intended to last only until the coming of
that offspring to whom the promise had been made; and it was delivered through
angels by a mediator. 20 Now mediation implies more than one person, but God is
one only. 21 Does that set the law in opposition to Gods promises? Heaven forbid!
For, if a law had been given capable of bestowing life, then righteousness would have
actually owed its existence to law. 22 But the words of scripture represent the whole
world as being in bondage to sin, so that the promised blessing, dependent, as it is, on
faith in Jesus Christ, may be given to those who have faith in him.
23 Before the coming of faith, we were kept under the guard of the law, in bondage,
awaiting the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Thus the law has proved a
guide to lead us to Christ, in order that we may be pronounced righteous as the result
of faith.
There is no indication in Galatians that only part of Old Testament Law came from Yahweh, or that
Paul realized that if all of it came from Yahweh, then Yahweh behaved very immorally. Nor is there any
indication that he realized that the ancient Israelites ought to have disobeyed except perhaps given
sufficient threat from Yahweh, in which case at least they shouldnt have obeyed them willingly, or
believing that they came from a morally good ruler of the world many of the legal dispositions
contained in the Old Testament of course, I'm talking about those ancient Israelites who were in a
situation in which the law demanded they engaged in some of the appalling actions mentioned earlier in
this essay.
In fact, even if Paul believed that Old Testament Law was not applicable to Christians, he clearly
believed that it was or had been applicable to the ancient Israelites from the time it was given to Moses
up to the time of Jesus at least, and also that it would have been at least morally acceptable for those
Israelites to follow said law. He even claims in the passage quoted above that Old Testament Law
played a role as a tutor or guide to lead people to Christ - obviously implying, in context, a morally
positive assessment of the Old Testament Law, at least for the context of the period I mentioned above.
4.2.2. Paul and some events in the Old Testament. Literal interpretation.
In this subsection, I will address some of Pauls views on some events depicted in the Old Testament. I
will argue that he interpreted those events in the OT literally, failing to realize that Yahweh was

depicted as a moral monster, and so were some of his followers and servants even though, of course,
the writers of those OT passages failed to realize that, and believed to be depicted good actions while in
reality they were depicted atrocities.
4.2.2.1. Acts 13. Canaan.
Acts 13 contains an account of a speech given allegedly - by Paul, in which he makes a number of
references to the Old Testament, including those depicting the massacres in Canaan.
In particular, Paul says the following:
GWEB:
Acts 13:
13:16 Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who
fear God, listen. 13:17 The God of this people* chose our fathers, and exalted the
people when they stayed as aliens in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm, he
led them out of it. 13:18 For a period of about forty years he put up with them in the
wilderness. 13:19 When he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he
gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred fifty years.
OEB[1]
Acts 13:
16 So Paul rose and, motioning with his hand, said: People of Israel and all here who
worship God, hear what I have to say. 17 The God of this people Israel chose our
ancestors, and during their stay in Egypt increased the prosperity of the people, and
then with uplifted arm brought them out from that land. 18 For about forty years he
bore with them in the desert; 19 then, after destroying seven heathen nations in
Canaan, he allotted their land to this people
In context, Pauls approval of Yahwehs actions is apparent, but those would be Yahwehs actions as
described in the Old Testament. Yet, some of Yahwehs actions, as described in the Old Testament
passages Paul is referring to, are morally appalling.
By the way, he also endorses the Exodus as described in the Old Testament as historic. He was
mistaken, and thus so is the New Testament, but this is a side note in the context of this moral case: we
may grant that the Exodus happened as described minus the relevant moral assessments of Yahweh's,

Moses's, etc., behavior, of course - for the sake of the argument.

Objection 4.2.2.1.1. Those nations werent destroyed in the sense of being exterminated
completely. They were driven away for good reasons, and those who resisted were killed.
Reply:
Regardless of whether they were exterminated, the fact is that many of those who did not resist and
were not guilty of anything such as young children were also targeted and killed.
Also, and additionally, given the method of killing, the attackers surely inflicted a lot of pain and
suffering on many of them before killing them. I addressed some of Yahwehs actions and some of the
actions of those following his commands in greater detail earlier.
4.2.2.2. Romans 9. Egypt.
GWEB:
Romans 9:
9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? May it never be!
9:15 For he said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I have compassion."* 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills,
nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy. 9:17 For the Scripture says to
Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I caused you to be raised up, that I might show in you
my power, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."* 9:18 So then, he
has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires. 9:19 You will say
then to me, "Why does he still find fault? For who withstands his will?" 9:20 But
indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed ask him who
formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"* 9:21 Or hasn't the potter a right over
the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for
dishonor? 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power
known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction, 9:23 and
that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he
prepared beforehand for glory, 9:24 us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only,
but also from the Gentiles?
OEB[1]

Romans 9:
14 What are we to say, then? Is God guilty of injustice? Heaven forbid! 15 For his
words to Moses are I will take pity on whom I take pity, and be merciful to whom
I am merciful. 16 So, then, all depends, not on human wishes or human efforts, but
on Gods mercy. 17 In scripture, again, it is said to Pharaoh It was for this
purpose that I raised you to the throne, to show my power by my dealings with you,
and to make my name known throughout the world. 18 So, then, where God wills, he
takes pity, and where he wills, he hardens the heart. 19 Perhaps you will say to me
How can anyone still be blamed? For who withstands his purpose? 20 I might rather
ask Who are you who are arguing with God? Does a thing which a person has
moulded say to the person who has moulded it Why did you make me like this? 21
Has not the potter absolute power over their clay, so that out of the same lump they
make one thing for better, and another for common, use? 22 And what if God,
intending to reveal his displeasure and make his power known, bore most patiently
with the objects of his displeasure, though they were fit only to be destroyed, 23 so as
to make known his surpassing glory in dealing with the objects of his mercy, whom
he prepared beforehand for glory, 24 and whom he called even us Not only
from among the Jews but from among the Gentiles also!
Here, and as before, Paul accepts some events described in the Old Testament as historical.
Yet, he fails to realize that if Yahweh behaved as described in those passages of the Old Testament
and many, many others -, he was a moral monster.
Objection 4.2.2.2.1. In that passage, Paul does not accept that Yahweh hardened Pharaohs heart
during the events described in Exodus, but just that Yahweh made Pharaoh that way beforehand,
as the clay analogy shows.
Reply:
a. The clay analogy does not seem to show that. It may well be and I find it more plausible that
Paul believed that Yahweh had predestined Pharaoh to do that, but intervened along Pharaohs life, in
order to carry out his agenda. That includes the hardening of Pharaohs heart.
b. Even under the assumption that Paul believed what this objection says, the fact remains that

Yahwehs actions, as depicted in the relevant Old Testament passages, were abhorrent. Purely for
example I addressed this matter in greater detail earlier -, the way he inflicted suffering on Egyptian
children was evil.
Objection 4.2.2.2.2. Pauls moral mistakes are not a problem for Christianity, since Christianity
does not claim that Paul was morally infallible, either in ascertaining moral truth, or in behaving
in a morally acceptable manner. Neither are Pauls mistaken beliefs about the historicity of some
of the events depicted in the Old Testament a problem for Christianity.
Reply:
According to the New Testament, Paul was chosen by Jesus to be his vessel to take his teachings to
other nations, and to Jews as well (Acts 9).
Pauls words in Romans 9 were one of the ways in which Paul was taking Jesuss teachings to the
intended audience. Moreover, those words made it into the New Testament, and by that means, it
reached people all over the world, for many centuries, spreading both historical and moral confusion.
Jesus could have easily corrected that. But he did not, even though he was willing to intervene and tell
some people like Saul/Paul to carry out his teachings.
4.2.3. More on Paul and the Old Testament. 2 Timothy 3.
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy is part of the New Testament, and claims to be from Paul. Lets
that a look:
GWEB:
2 Timothy 3:
3:14 But you remain in the things which you have learned and have been assured of,
knowing from whom you have learned them. 3:15 From infancy, you have known the
sacred writings which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is
in Christ Jesus. 3:16 Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness, 3:17 that the
man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
OEB[1]
2 Timothy 3:
You know who they were from whom you learnt it; 15 and that, from your childhood,

you have known the sacred writings, which can give you the wisdom that, through
belief in Christ Jesus, leads to salvation. 16 All scripture is God-breathed: helpful for
teaching, for refuting error, for giving guidance, and for training others in
righteousness; 17 so that God's people may be capable and equipped for good work of
every kind.
So, the letter claims that all scripture is from Yahweh, and good in particular for moral teaching.
The GWEBs wording is different, and based on it, someone might suggest that perhaps the OEB got
the translation wrong, and that perhaps Paul was only talking about Yahweh-inspired writings, without
taking a stance on whether all of the writings understood at the time as scriptural were in fact Yahwehinspired.
However, and regardless of which translation is more accurate, in that passage Paul states that he is
talking about the writings that Timothy had known from infancy/childhood, and which Paul calls
sacred writings. Given that those writings included all of Old Testament Law, plus the events
depicted in the Old Testament and which I addressed earlier in this essay, one should reckon that the
author of this epistle believed that all of those writings which include moral atrocities, false moral
claims or implications, etc. - were profitable for moral teaching, and in fact were inspired by Yahweh.
Also, assuming that the author is not lying, the author is Paul. Given that, Paul was a terrible moral
teacher. He would have led people into vast moral confusion well, that he did. And yet, Paul was
appointed by Jesus as a teacher also, according to the New Testament.
Now, if the author of the letter was not Paul, then the author was lying about that, so a lie made it into
the New Testament. But regardless of that, the fact is that epistle is a part of the New Testament, and
claims or implies that all of Old Testament Law is from Yahweh, is profitable for moral teaching, and
so on.
Objection 4.2.3.1. Paul said that those writings were profitable for moral teaching, but he did not
say how. Its compatible with Pauls claim that some of the writings are profitable in the sense
that by reading them, people would likely figure out that many of their moral claims or
implications are false, etc.
Reply:
1. Thats simply not a reasonable assessment of the evidence. Paul never suggested any of the sort, and

that was not the understanding of other Christians, either.

2. In the passage under consideration, Paul implied that Old Testament law, plus all of the passages
depicting events and making false moral claims or implications that I addressed earlier in this essay,
were inspired by Yahweh.
So, given that, it follows in particular from Pauls implications and the fact that Old Testament Law is
deeply unjust overall, and contains many despicable dispositions, that Yahweh inspired a deeply unjust
law overall, and many despicable dispositions. Moreover, it also follows that Yahweh inspired
depictions of other atrocities which are implicitly or explicitly presented as morally acceptable or
even obligatory, or praiseworthy, in the Old Testament.
Objection 4.2.3.2. 2 Timothy was not actually written by Paul.
Reply:
1. Regardless of who wrote 2 Timothy, the fact is that 2 Timothy is part of the New Testament, and
claims or evidently implies that all of scripture the scripture known by childhood by Timothy is
Yahweh-inspired. That includes all of Old Testament Law, plus the other atrocities depicted in the Old
Testament and which I addressed earlier in this essay.
2. Incidentally, 2 Timothy is part of the New Testament, and claims to be from Paul. So, if its not, then
clearly the New Testament contains a lie among many other false claims.
Objection 4.2.3.3. Paul did not believe that the divorce law was Yahweh-inspired, since Jesus said
otherwise.
Reply:
1. Jesus said in the New Testament that Moses gave them the divorce law because of the hardness of
the hearts of some people, but did not say that the legal disposition in question did not come from
Yahweh.
2. Moses claimed or implied that the entire set of laws was from Yahweh, but Jesus never suggested
that Moses had falsely attributed commands to Yahweh.
3. At any rate, the fact remains that 2 Timothy is part of the New Testament, and identifies the scripture
that Timothy would have learned from childhood as sacred, and that includes all of Old Testament
Law, plus the other atrocities depicted in the Old Testament and which I addressed earlier in this essay.
Objection 4.2.3.4. But the New Testament makes it clear that [parts of, or all, on different versions

of this objection] Old Testament Law is no longer binding for Christians. You're just taking this
passages out of context.
Reply:
1. I'm not taking anything out of context. I'm quoting from the Bible and pointing out what 2 Timothy 3
says, which is that all of the Old Testament is good for moral teaching.
2. I'm not claiming or suggesting that 2 Timothy 3 establishes or claims that all or part of the legal
dispositions in the Old Testament are binding for Christians. However, by claiming that all of scripture
is good for moral teaching, 2 Timothy 3 is committed to:
a. The false moral belief that following the commands contained in the Old Testament Laws was
morally acceptable and even obligatory for those under that law. That includes commands to
commit morally appalling actions, like stoning a woman to death because the tokens of her
virginity were not found the night she was handed over to the man his father chose as a husband,
or if she was found having sex with someone other than the man her father chose for her if not
for not crying if she was being raped, etc.
This is compatible with the view that Christians do not have a moral obligation to do that, or even
that they have a moral obligation not to do that. But it's still a case of a moral belief that is far
away from the truth.
b. The false moral belief that the moral claims or implications made in the context of Old
Testament Law, were all true. For example, it's implied in the Bible, and in the context of Old
Testament Law, that the people being stoned to death, burned to death, etc., as punishments,
actually deserved to be treated in that manner. That is false.
4.3. Stephen and Moses.
Among other claims, Acts 6 says that some people accused Stephen of promoting the belief that Jesus
will change the law of Moses.
GWEB:
Acts 6:
6:12 They stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes, and came against him and
seized him, and brought him in to the council, 6:13 and set up false witnesses who
said, "This man never stops speaking blasphemous words against this holy place and

the law. 6:14 For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this
place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us."
OEB[1]
Acts 6:
12 and they stirred up the people, as well as the councillors and the teachers of the
law, and set on Stephen, and arrested him, and brought him before the High Council.
13 There they produced witnesses who gave false evidence.This man, they said, is
incessantly saying things against this Holy place and the law; 14 indeed, we have
heard him declare that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and change the
customs handed down to us by Moses.
In Acts 7, Stephen rejects the accusations and makes, among others, the following claims.
GWEB:
Acts 7:
7:35 "This Moses, whom they refused, saying, 'Who made you a ruler and a judge?'-God has sent him as both a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel who
appeared to him in the bush. 7:36 This man led them out, having worked wonders and
signs in Egypt, in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. 7:37 This is that
Moses, who said to the children of Israel, The Lord our God will raise up a prophet
for you from among your brothers, like me.*'* 7:38 This is he who was in the
assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with
our fathers, who received living oracles to give to us,
OEB[1]
Acts 7:
35 This same Moses, whom they had disowned with the words Who made you a
ruler and a judge? was the man whom God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer,
under the guidance of the angel that had appeared to him in the bush.
36 He it was who led them out, after he had shown wonders and signs in Egypt, in the
Red Sea, and in the desert during forty years. 37 This was the Moses who said to the
people of Israel God will raise up for you, from among yourselves, a prophet, as

he raised up me. 38 He, too, it was who was present at the assembly in the desert,
with the angel who talked to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, and who
received living truths to impart to you.
Clearly, Stephen claims that Moses indeed led the ancient Israelites out of Egypt with Yahwehs help,
guided by an angel.
Stephen continues:
GWEB:
Acts 7:
7:51 "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the
Holy Spirit! As your fathers did, so you do. 7:52 Which of the prophets didn't your
fathers persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One,
of whom you have now become betrayers and murderers. 7:53 You received the law
as it was ordained by angels, and didn't keep it!"
OEB[1]
Acts 7:
51 Stubborn people, heathen in heart and ears, you are for ever resisting the Holy
Spirit; your ancestors did it, and you are doing it still. 52 Which of the prophets
escaped persecution at their hands? They killed those who foretold the coming of the
righteous one; of whom you, in your turn, have now become the betrayers and
murderers 53 You who received the Law as transmitted by angels and yet failed to
keep it.
So, Stephen claims that the law of Moses that they received was the law as transmitted by angels.
This is clearly an endorsement of Mosaic Law, at least as proper for the people of ancient Israel, and of
many of Moses actions, as depicted in the Old Testament, and to the extent that hes allegedly
following Yahwehs commands.
In the story, Stephen surely knew that the people he was talking to most of them at least believed
that the events in Egypt had happened exactly as described in the Old Testament, and moreover that all
of the actions of Yahweh and of Moses described there were morally good.
Similarly, at least most of the people Stephen was talking to believed that Yahweh gave Moses all of

the Old Testament Law, as described in the Bible, and they also believed that all of the commands in
question were morally good, and Stephen again knew that.
Yet, Stephen at no point suggests that either the Old Testament description was mistaken, or that
Yahweh and Moses were behaving immorally. On the contrary, he seems to clearly accept that the
account is historical, and also approve of Moses actions, and of Yahwehs as well.
Now, its apparent that Stephen was not trying to hide his beliefs out of fear, since he continued to
make points that enraged his audience and which he clearly realized would likely have that effect -, to
the point that they stone him to death afterward. Nor is there any suggestion that Stephen was hiding
his beliefs for any other reason.
However, if Stephen had been aware of the fact that if Yahweh and Moses behaved as described in
some the passages of the Old Testament Stephen was talking about, their actions were abhorrent, it
seems apparent that his words would have been very different from what they were.
So, based on all of the above, Acts 6 and 7 strongly support the conclusion that Stephen believed that
those appalling actions described in the Old Testament were not only historical, but also morally good.
Yet, according to Acts 6:5, Stephen was a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.
4.4. Peter and the Old Testament.
In this subsection, I will address some of the claims or implications made by Peter according to the
New Testament - about some events in the Old Testament.
4.4.1. 2 Peter 2. The Flood.
The Second Epistle to Peter accepts the historicity of a number of Old Testament events, including
some in which Yahwehs behavior was immoral. In particular, the author mentions Noah and the Flood.
GWEB:
2 Peter 2:
2:4 For if God didn't spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus,
and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 2:5 and didn't
spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of
righteousness, when he brought a flood on the world of the ungodly; 2:6 and turning
the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, having
made them an example to those who would live ungodly; 2:7 and delivered righteous

Lot, who was very distressed by the lustful life of the wicked 2:8 (for that righteous
man dwelling among them, was tormented in his righteous soul from day to day with
seeing and hearing lawless deeds): 2:9 the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out
of temptation and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment;
2:10 but chiefly those who walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement, and despise
authority
OEB[1]
2 Peter 2:
4 Remember, God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them down to
Tartarus, and consigned them to caverns of darkness, to be kept under guard for
judgment. 5 Nor did he spare the world of old; though he preserved Noah, the
preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when he brought a flood on the godless
world. 6 He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and reduced them to
ashes, holding them up as a warning to the godless of what was in store for them; 7
but he rescued righteous Lot, whose heart was vexed by the wanton licentiousness of
his neighbors; 8 for, seeing and hearing what he did, as he lived his righteous life
among them, day after day, Lots righteous soul was tortured by their wicked doings.
9 The Lord, therefore, knows how to deliver the pious from temptation, and to keep
the wicked, who are even now suffering punishment, in readiness for the day of
judgment 10 especially those who, following the promptings of their lower
nature, indulge their polluting passions and despise all control. Audacious and selfwilled, they feel no awe of the celestial beings, maligning them,
While its true that the author of 2 Peter was focusing on condemning certain behaviors, rather than on
the question of the historicity of the Flood account, he accepts without question that all the behavior
displayed by Yahweh in the parts of the Old Testament hes referring to, was not immoral that is
implicit in the letter, given context.
However, the behavior displayed by Yahweh in the Old Testament Flood account (for instance) was
very immoral. So, here, as in many other passages, the New Testament contains a false moral
assessment, implicit in this particular case, but still clear enough.

Objection 4.4.1.1. Peter did not write 2 Peter.

Reply:
But 2 Peter is still part of the New Testament. So, it remains the case that the New Testament implicitly
or explicitly accepts the historicity of the events described above.
Additionally, if 2 Peter was not written by Peter, then the New Testament makes the false historical
claim that 2 Peter was written by Peter.
4.4.2. 2 Peter 2. Lot and his daughters.
As described in the Old Testament, Yahweh destroyed the city of Sodom, but spared Lot and some of
his family members.
One may raise here the issues of people who lived in Sodom and did not deserve to be killed, including
children, the suffering that may have been inflicted on those children by Yahweh, and so on.
However, Ive already addressed several of the cases in which Yahweh inflicts horrible suffering on the
innocent, and in this part of this essay, I would like to focus on Lots character, and the claims made in
the New Testament.
So, Yahweh sent two angels to talk to Lot and warn him in advance, before destroying the city. The
following passages describe some of the events:
GWEB:
Genesis 19:
19:1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. Lot
saw them, and rose up to meet them. He bowed himself with his face to the earth,
19:2 and he said, "See now, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, stay
all night, wash your feet, and you will rise up early, and go on your way." They said,
"No, but we will stay in the street all night." 19:3 He urged them greatly, and they
came in with him, and entered into his house. He made them a feast, and baked
unleavened bread, and they ate. 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city,
the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from
every quarter. 19:5 They called to Lot, and said to him, "Where are the men who
came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them."
19:6 Lot went out to them to the door, and shut the door after him. 19:7 He said,

"Please, my brothers, don't act so wickedly. 19:8 See now, I have two virgin
daughters. Please let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them what seems
good to you. Only don't do anything to these men, because they have come under the
shadow of my roof."
So, two angels arrived in Sodom, and Lot invited them into his house which the angels accepted.
A group of other men from Sodom did not know that the two guests at Lots house were angels, and
wanted to rape them. But when those men demanded that Lot bring the two guests to them so that they
could rape them, Lot offered his two daughters to the rapists instead, on the condition that the rapist
left the angels alone.
Lot behaved in an appalling manner. He was handing his daughters over to be raped in order to save
two angels from being raped!
But what does the New Testament, and specifically 2 Peter, say about Lot?
GWEB:
2 Peter 2:
2:4 For if God didn't spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus,
and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 2:5 and didn't
spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of
righteousness, when he brought a flood on the world of the ungodly; 2:6 and turning
the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, having
made them an example to those who would live ungodly; 2:7 and delivered righteous
Lot, who was very distressed by the lustful life of the wicked 2:8 (for that righteous
man dwelling among them, was tormented in his righteous soul from day to day with
seeing and hearing lawless deeds):
OEB[1]
2 Peter 2:
4 Remember, God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them down to
Tartarus, and consigned them to caverns of darkness, to be kept under guard for
judgment. 5 Nor did he spare the world of old; though he preserved Noah, the
preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when he brought a flood on the godless

world. 6 He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and reduced them to
ashes, holding them up as a warning to the godless of what was in store for them; 7
but he rescued righteous Lot, whose heart was vexed by the wanton licentiousness of
his neighbors; 8 for, seeing and hearing what he did, as he lived his righteous life
among them, day after day, Lots righteous soul was tortured by their wicked doings.
The author of 2 Peter was familiar with the story of Lot, as depicted in Genesis. Yet, the author
considered that Lot was righteous, and the claim that Lot was righteous is part of the New Testament.
While a righteous person doesnt need to be morally perfect, it should be clear that a person who
behaves as wickedly as Lot did in the Genesis passage I quoted above is not a righteous person not by
a long shot.
So, the New Testament makes the false moral claim that Lot was a righteous person. Also, this passage
shows the extent of the moral confusion of the author of 2 Peter.
Objection 4.4.2.1. The depiction of the events in Genesis is erroneous. Lot did not offer his
daughters to the rapists to save the angels. The author of 2 Peter knew that.
Reply:
1. There is no indication in the Bible that the author of 2 Peter did not believe that the Genesis
depiction was not historically accurate.
2. On the contrary, context clearly indicates that he considered the account historically accurate, given
that he was also talking about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and other events depicted in
the Old Testament, like the Flood as if they were historical, and he had no other source of information
about those events or alleged events than the Hebrew scriptures.
Moreover, he was talking to people who generally accepted the accounts in question as historically
accurate, so one would have expected a clarification if he thought otherwise.
So, its almost certain that he accepted those scriptural accounts as historic as was usual in his social
context -, and said nothing to suggest that he made an exception in the case of Lots actions.
3. In any case, the author of 2 Peter knew or should have known that at least most of the people he was
addressing believed that the biblical description was accurate, so by endorsing Lot as righteous, the
author of 2 Peter was promoting false moral beliefs, either knowingly or much more likely due to
his own moral confusion.

Objection 4.4.2.2. Peter did not write 2 Peter.

Reply:
But 2 Peter is still part of the New Testament, and claims to be from Peter.
So, it remains the case that the New Testament makes the false moral claim that Lot was a righteous
person, and in addition, if Peter did not write 2 Peter, then the New Testament makes the false historical
claim that 2 Peter was written by Peter though thats not the main issue in this context.
Objection 4.4.2.3. Lot didnt know that the angels were powerful enough to defeat the rapists,
and he was trying to protect angels. The rape of angels would be worse than the rape of humans,
so he was trying to prevent something worse by offering his daughters to the rapists.
Reply:
1. Even if Lot did not know about the angels' powers, he had a moral obligation not to offer his
daughters to a gang of rapists in order to persuade the rapists to spare the angels.
In fact, Lot would have had that moral obligation even if the angels had been morally good persons,
and even if they had been morally better than Lots daughters. As usual, I would ask readers to assess
the matter using their own sense of right and wrong, rather than trusting biblical claims on the matter
which would be like putting the cart before the horses, in the context of assessing whether some
biblical moral claims are true.
2. Incidentally, Lot should have known that the angels were not morally good, since they were two of
Yahwehs enforces, willing to do Yahwehs bidding and Yahweh is a moral monster, which Lot
should have known, and maybe would have known if he had used his own sense of right and wrong to
assess Yahwehs behavior, instead of blindly following him.
But this is incidental, since even if Lot had properly believed that the angels were morally good, or
even morally better than any human, that would not have made it morally acceptable to hand over his
daughters to the rapists in order to protect the angels.
As usual, I would ask readers to assess the matter using their own sense of right and wrong, rather than
trusting biblical claims on the matter.
3. At any rate, if Lot wanted to make a sacrifice for the angels, he could have offered himself to the
rapists. Of course, Lot did not have a moral obligation to make that kind of sacrifice though he had
the right to do it -, but he did have a moral obligation not to turn his daughters over to the rapists.

And even if Lot reckoned the rapists would not have accepted raping him instead of the angels, he still
should not have offered his daughters to the gang of rapists. His behavior was horrific.
Objection 4.4.2.4. Lot had invited the angels into his home, and for that reason, he was
responsible for their safety, even if that required big sacrifices.
Reply:
The fact that he had invited them does not cancel his moral obligation not to offer his daughters to a
gang of rapists. Lots actions were simply despicable.
Objection 4.4.2.5. It was implicit, given the local customs, that by inviting them into his house,
Lot made a commitment to protect the angels at any cost.
Reply:
If Lots commitment to the safety of the angels, implicit or explicit, included the protection of the
angels at any cost to his daughters, then that would have been a morally abhorrent deal regardless of
whether in line with local customs or not -, and in any case, Lot would still have had the moral
obligation not to hand his daughters over to the rapists in order to protect the angels.
The fact remains that Lot's actions were deeply immoral.
4.5. The Letter to the Hebrews and the Old Testament.
In this section, I will assess some of the references to the Old Testament included in the Letter to the
Hebrews.
While the letter declares Old Testament Law no longer applicable, places Jesus above Moses, etc., the
fact is that the Letter to the Hebrews implicitly or explicitly, depending on the part of the law holds
that Old Testament Law was indeed from Yahweh, and also that many events depicted in the Old
Testament actually happened as depicted.
More precisely, the Letter to the Hebrews:
a. Makes frequent references to the Old Testament, without suggesting any errors in it.
b. In particular, tries to establish historic links between Old Testament events and people on one
hand, and events and people from the time the letter was written on the other hand. In order to do
that, the letter uses the Old Testament as a trustworthy historic record, without any qualifications.
c. In particular, the letter uses the Old Testament as an authoritative source about what Yahweh's
law for the ancient Israelites was, from the time of Moses up to the time of Jesus, without any

qualifications.
Given that, in context it should be clear that the Letter to the Hebrews implicitly endorses a literal
interpretation of the events described in the Old Testament in the context of the parts it quotes, as well
as relevantly related parts. That includes Yahweh's authorship of all of Old Testament Law.
Moreover though the points above suffice -, the people the letter was meant for were Hebrews who
believed that Old Testament Law was given to Moses by Yahweh, and also believed in a literal
interpretation of events like the Flood, the Exodus, Joshua's immoral campaign - they didn't realize
Joshua's behavior was morally abhorrent in those depictions, but they believed the events happened as
described -. and so on. Yet, the Letter to The Hebrews makes no suggestion at any that those events had
not happened, and clearly talks as if they did even though the author of the letter knew about the
beliefs held by the people the letter addresses.
That makes a non-literal interpretation of those references to the Old Testament even more improbable;
the evidence clearly supports the view that they were meant to be taken literally.
Moreover, many of the actions the letter directly or indirectly mentions actions by Yahweh, Moses,
etc. - were morally appalling, but the Letter to the Hebrews makes no mention of that, an in fact,
sometimes implicitly and sometimes even explicitly, it deems them morally good. Those are gross
moral errors regardless of whether the events in question happened or not, and also regardless of
whether the letter holds that they did.
In the following subsections, I will provide evidence supporting the assessments that the Letter to the
Hebrews makes a literal interpretation of many Old Testament passages and that in particular, it
considers Old Testament Law to be entirely from Yahweh.
Additionally, and more importantly in this context, I will make the point that regardless of whether or
not that literal interpretation is intended, many of the moral claims or implications contained in the
letter are grossly mistaken.
As for objections, I will not repeat in this section my reply to objections to my assessment that Old
Testament Law has appalling dispositions, etc.; I already handled that earlier.
Of course, given that theory is underdetermined by evidence, someone might consistently reject the
assessment that the Letter to the Hebrews supports the literal interpretation I described above or part
of it -, and say that for example they consider it more probable that the Letter to the Hebrews didn't

intend to focus on the issue of historicity, which they might consider a detail in context, and so we may
not reach any conclusions about historicity or claims of historicity from it. With regard to that sort of
objections, my reply is:
1. Given the available evidence including the points I made above in this section, and the
evidence I will provide in the subsections below -, such interpretations are extremely improbable.
I invite readers to make their own assessments on the matter.
2. In any case, even assuming for the sake of the argument that I'm mistaken about the literal
interpretation, some decisive moral objections to Christianity based on the Letter to the Hebrews
remain even if not all of them do -, as I will argue below.
4.5.1. Hebrews 1 and 2. A historic link.
In the first and second chapters, the Letter to the Hebrews intends to establish a historic link between
the prophets and other characters in the Old Testament on one hand, and Jesus on the other, claiming
continuity in Yahweh's revelation. That makes allegoric, metaphoric, or generally non-literal
interpretations of many events depicted in the Old Testament extremely improbable as the intended
interpretation of Hebrews which becomes even more clear given the audience the letter was for, as
pointed out above.
GWEB:
Hebrews 1 and 2
1:1 God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times
and in various ways, 1:2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom
he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. 1:3 His Son is
the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by
the word of his power, when he had by himself made purification for our sins, sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 1:4 having become so much better
than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they have. 1:5 For to
which of the angels did he say at any time,
"You are my Son.
Today have I become your father?"
and again,

"I will be to him a Father, and he will be to me a Son?"

1:6 Again, when he brings in the firstborn into the world he says, "Let all the angels
of God worship him." 1:7 Of the angels he says,
"Who makes his angels winds,
and his servants a flame of fire."
1:8 But of the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.
The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your Kingdom.
1:9 You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your
fellows."
1:10 And,
"You, Lord, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the earth.
The heavens are the works of your hands.
1:11 They will perish, but you continue.
They all will grow old like a garment does.
1:12 As a mantle, you will roll them up,
and they will be changed;
but you are the same.
Your years will not fail."
1:13 But which of the angels has he told at any time,
"Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet?"
1:14 Aren't they all serving spirits, sent out to do service for the sake of those who
will inherit salvation?
2:1 Therefore we ought to pay greater attention to the things that were heard, lest
perhaps we drift away. 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast,
and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense; 2:3 how will
we escape if we neglect so great a salvation--which at the first having been spoken

through the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard; 2:4 God also testifying
with them, both by signs and wonders, by various works of power, and by gifts of the
Holy Spirit, according to his own will?
OEB[1]
Hebrews 1
[1] God, who, of old, at many times and in many ways, spoke to our ancestors, by the
prophets, [2] has in these latter days spoken to us by the Son, whom he appointed the
heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. [3] For he is the radiance
of the glory of God and the expression of his being, upholding all creation by the
power of his word; and, when he had made an expiation for the sins of humanity, he
took his seat at the right hand of God's Majesty on high, [4] having shown himself
as much greater than the angels as the name that he has inherited surpasses theirs.
[5] For to which of the angels did God ever say
You are my Son; this day I have become your Father?
For again
I will be to him a Father, and he will be to me a Son?
[6] And again, when God brought the first-born into the world, he said
Let all the angels of God bow down before him.
[7] Speaking of the angels, he said
He makes the winds his angels
And the flames of fire his servants';
[8] while of the Son he said
God is your throne for ever and ever;
The scepter of his kingdom is the scepter of Justice;
[9] You love righteousness and hates iniquity;
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the festal oil more abundantly than
your peers.
[10] Again
You, Lord, in the beginning did lay the foundation of the earth,

And the heavens are the work of your hands.

[11] They will perish, but you remain;
As a garment they will all grow old;
[12] As a mantle you will fold them up,
And as a garment they will be changed,
But you are the same, and your years will know no end.
[13] To which of the angels has God ever said
Sit you at my right hand
Until I put your enemies as a stool for your feet?
[14] Are not all the angels spirits in the service of God, sent out to minister for the
sake of those who are destined to obtain salvation?
Hebrews 2
[1] Therefore we must give still more heed to what we were taught, so we do not drift
away. [2] For, if the message which was delivered by angels had its authority
confirmed, so that every offense against it, or neglect of it, met with a fitting requital,
[3] how can we, of all people, expect to escape, if we disregard so great a salvation?
It was the Master who at the outset spoke of this salvation, and its authority was
confirmed for us by those who heard him, [4] while God himself added his testimony
to it by signs, and marvels, and many different miracles, as well as by imparting the
Holy Spirit as he saw fit.
The letter quotes from many passages of the Old Testament, and the intent to make a historic
connection is apparent. No indication whatsoever that some of the events depicted in the Old Testament
concerning the actions and words of the prophets, the accounts of Yahweh's communicating in various
ways to the ancient Israelites, etc., did not happen, is given.
4.5.2. Hebrews 3. Moses, Egypt, and the Exodus.
GWEB:
Hebrews 3
1 Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and
High Priest of our confession, Jesus; 2 who was faithful to him who appointed him,

as also was Moses in all his house. 3 For he has been counted worthy of more glory
than Moses, inasmuch as he who built the house has more honor than the house. 4 For
every house is built by someone; but he who built all things is God. 5 Moses indeed
was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were
afterward to be spoken, 6 but Christ is faithful as a Son over his house; whose house
we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the glorying of our hope firm to the end.
OEB[1]
Hebrews 3
1. Therefore, my Christian friends, you who, all alike, have received the call from
heaven, fix your attention on Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our religion. [2] See
how faithful he was to the God who appointed him, as Moses was in the whole house
of God. [3] He has been deemed worthy of far higher honor than Moses, just as the
founder of the house is held in greater regard than the house itself. [4] For every
house has its founder, and the founder of the universe is God. [5] While the faithful
service of Moses in the whole house of God was that of a servant, whose duty was to
bear testimony to a message still to come, [6] the faithfulness of Christ was that of a
son set over the house of God. And we are his house if only we retain, unshaken to
the end, the courage and confidence inspired by our hope.
In the passage quoted above, the letter places Jesus clearly above Moses. But in doing so, he implies
the historicity of Moses. Moreover, it implicitly accepts the accuracy of the accounts of Moses's actions
in the Old Testament. That is very clear because that was the source accepted by Jews of the time of the
letter as an accurate record of Moses's behavior, and the letter offers no other source nor makes any
suggestion that the source generally trusted contained false statements about Moses, and even goes on
to assesses Moses's worthiness, his position in history, etc. - which wouldn't make sense without a
record of his life, at least generally accurate.
Also, the letter regards Moses in a positive light not as positive as Jesus, of course, but still, the letter
clearly fails to recognize that the Moses of the Old Testament would be an evil person, given some
many of his actions like participating in the stoning of a man who surely did not deserve that for
gathering sticks on a Sabbath -, or commanding by means of Old Testament Law - the stoning,

burning, etc., of people who also did not deserve any of that for any of the actions for which they are so
punished, commanding the destruction of entire cities killing everyone including prisoners of war,
children, non-combatants -, or everyone except for those taken as slaves in other cases, and so on. Of
course, in of all those cases, Yahweh was also a perpetrator; in fact, he was the boss who gave the
orders Moses and others shouldn't have obeyed. But in the Letter to the Hebrews, Moses is regarded
positively, and of course Yahweh much more so, while the Old Testament account of Moses's life is
implicitly accepted without mentioning exceptions.
Granted, the passage I quoted above does not in particular refer to all of those cases. But it's part of a
letter to people who believed those events had happened, there is no indication whatsoever in the letter
that they hadn't, and the idea that Moses was a good servant is also based on an assessment of the
actions of Moses depicted in the Old Testament a very mistaken one, but that's not the point.
GWEB:
Hebrews 3
12 Beware, brothers, lest perhaps there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief,
in falling away from the living God; 3:13 but exhort one another day by day, so long
as it is called "today;" lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our
confidence firm to the end: 3:15 while it is said
"Today if you will hear his voice, don't harden your hearts, as in the rebellion."
3:16 For who, when they heard, rebelled? No, didn't all those who came out of Egypt
by Moses? 3:17 With whom was he displeased forty years? Wasn't it with those who
sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 3:18 To whom did he swear that they
wouldn't enter into his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 3:19 We see that they
were not able to enter in because of unbelief.
OEB[1]
Hebrews 3
[12] Be careful, friends, that there is never found in anyone of you a wicked and
faithless heart, shown by that person separating themselves from the living God. [13]
Rather encourage one another daily while there is a Today to prevent anyone

among you from being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. [14] For we now all
share in the Christ, if indeed we retain, unshaken to the end, the confidence that we
had at the first. [15] To use the words of scripture If today you hear God's voice,
Harden not your hearts, as when Israel provoked me. [16] Who were they who heard
God speak and yet provoked him? Were not they all those who left Egypt under the
leadership of Moses? [17] And with whom was it that God was sorely vexed for forty
years? Was not it with those who had sinned, and who fell dead in the desert? [18]
And who were they to whom God swore that they should not enter upon his rest, if
not those who had proved faithless? [19] We see, then, that they failed to enter upon it
because of their want of faith.
In these passages, the letter talks about Moses's leadership, the exodus through the desert, and the
rebellion of some of them against Yahweh and speaks as if those people existed, wandered through
the desert, rebelled, etc., gives the example of how Yahweh was vexed for forty years with those
people, and so on.
While it might be argued that the author of the letter didn't want to stress that those events had never
happened, but wanted to teach a moral lesson, it would have been deceitful to do that in that
conversational context, and in any case, there is no indication in that passage or its context that weighs
against the most natural interpretation by far the literal one; i. e., that the Letter to the Hebrews holds
that events such as the Flood, the destruction of Jericho, etc., happened as described in the Old
Testament, and also that Yahweh is the author of Old Testament Law, which he actually gave to Moses.
In fact, the context of the letter clearly supports that interpretation, given the obvious attempt to
establish a historic link, and a of continuity in Yahweh's revelation.
4.5.3. Hebrews 6, 7 and 8. More detailed historic accounts.
In the sixth, seventh and eighth chapters earlier too, but I will focus on these ones now -, the Letter to
the Hebrews keeps making comparisons between Jesus and some characters in the Old Testament.
While it's of course possible and in some context proper to compare fictional characters with real
people, in the case of the letter, context indicates that the people mentioned in the Old Testament are
assumed to be real, and their actions depicted in the Old Testament are assumed to be real as well.
Otherwise, it would make no sense to try to establish links throughout history, argue for a progressive

revelation, etc.
The following passages are some examples:
GWEB:
Hebrews 6
6. 19. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and
entering into that which is within the veil; 6:20 where as a forerunner Jesus entered
for us, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7
7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham
returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 7:2 to whom also Abraham
divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, king of righteousness, and
then also king of Salem, which is king of peace; 7:3 without father, without mother,
without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the
Son of God), remains a priest continually. 7:4 Now consider how great this man was,
to whom even Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the best spoils. 7:5 They
indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have a commandment to
take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brothers, though these
have come out of the body of Abraham, 7:6 but he whose genealogy is not counted
from them has accepted tithes from Abraham, and has blessed him who has the
promises. 7:7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 7:8 Here
people who die receive tithes, but there one receives tithes of whom it is testified that
he lives. 7:9 We can say that through Abraham even Levi, who receives tithes, has
paid tithes, 7:10 for he was yet in the body of his father when Melchizedek met him.
7:11 Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the
people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise
after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 7:12 For
the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law.
7:13 For he of whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no
one has officiated at the altar. 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of

Judah, about which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 7:15 This is yet
more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another
priest, 7:16 who has been made, not after the law of a fleshly commandment, but after
the power of an endless life: 7:17 for it is testified,
"You are a priest forever,
according to the order of Melchizedek."
7:18 For there is an annulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness
and uselessness 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in of a better
hope, through which we draw near to God. 7:20 Inasmuch as he was not made priest
without the taking of an oath 7:21 (for they indeed have been made priests without an
oath), but he with an oath by him that says of him,
"The Lord swore and will not change his mind,
'You are a priest forever,
according to the order of Melchizedek.'"
7:22 By so much, Jesus has become the collateral of a better covenant. 7:23 Many,
indeed, have been made priests, because they are hindered from continuing by death.
7:24 But he, because he lives forever, has his priesthood unchangeable. 7:25
Therefore he is also able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through
him, seeing that he lives forever to make intercession for them.
7:26 For such a high priest was fitting for us: holy, guiltless, undefiled, separated
from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 7:27 who doesn't need, like those
high priests, to offer up sacrifices daily, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of
the people. For he did this once for all, when he offered up himself. 7:28 For the law
appoints men as high priests who have weakness, but the word of the oath which
came after the law appoints a Son forever who has been perfected.
OEB[1]
Hebrews 6
[19] This hope is an anchor for our souls, secure and strong, and it reaches into the
sanctuary that lies behind the curtain, [20] where Jesus, our forerunner, has entered

on our behalf, after being made for all time a high priest of the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7
[1] It was this Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, who met
Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and gave him his blessing; [2] and
it was to him that Abraham allotted a tithe of all the spoil. The meaning of his name is
king of righteousness, and besides that, he was also king of Salem, which means
king of peace. [3] There is no record of his father, or mother, or lineage, nor again of
any beginning of his days, or end of his life. In this he resembles the Son of God, and
stands before us as a priest whose priesthood is continuous.
[4] Consider, then the importance of this Melchizedek, to whom even the patriarch
Abraham himself gave a tithe of the choicest spoils. [5] Those descendants of Levi,
who are from time to time appointed to the priesthood, are directed to collect tithes
from the people in accordance with the Law that is from their own kindred,
although they also are descended from Abraham. [6] But Melchizedek, although not
of this lineage, received tithes from Abraham, and gave his blessing to the man who
had God's promises. [7] Now no one can dispute that it is the superior who blesses the
inferior. [8] In the one case the tithes are received by people who are mortal; in the
other case by one about whom there is the statement that his life still continues. [9]
Moreover, in a sense, even Levi, who is the receiver of the tithes, has, through
Abraham, paid tithes; [10] for Levi was still in the body of his ancestor when
Melchizedek met Abraham.
[11] If, then, perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood and it
was under this priesthood that the people received the Law why was it still
necessary that a priest of a different order should appear, a priest of the order of
Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron? [12] With the change of the priesthood a
change of the Law became a necessity. [13] And he of whom all this is said belonged
to quite a different tribe, no member of which has ever served at the altar. [14] For it
is plain that our Lord had sprung from the tribe of Judah, though of that tribe Moses
said nothing about their being priests. [15] All this becomes even yet plainer when we

remember that a new priest has appeared, resembling Melchizedek, [16] and that he
was appointed, not under a Law regulating only earthly matters, but by virtue of a life
beyond the reach of death; [17] for that is the meaning of the declaration
You are for all time a priest of the order of Melchizedek.
[18] On the one hand, we have the abolition of a previous regulation as being both
inefficient and useless [19] (for the Law never brought anything to perfection); and,
on the other hand, we have the introduction of a better hope, which enables us to
draw near to God. [20] Then again, the appointment of this new priest was ratified by
an oath, which is not so with the Levitical priests, [21] but his appointment was
ratified by an oath, when God said to him
The Lord has sworn, and will not change, You are a priest for all time.
[22] And the oath shows the corresponding superiority of the covenant of which Jesus
is appointed the surety. [23] Again, new Levitical priests are continually being
appointed, because death prevents their remaining in office; [24] but Jesus remains
for all time, and therefore the priesthood that he holds will never pass to another. [25]
And that is why he is able to save perfectly those who come to God through him,
living for ever, as he does, to intercede of their behalf.
[26] This was the high priest that we needed holy, innocent, spotless, withdrawn
from sinners, exalted above the highest heaven, [27] one who has no need to offer
sacrifices daily as those high priests have, first for their own sins, and then for those
of the people. For this he did once and for all, when he offered himself as the
sacrifice. [28] The Law appoints as high priests men who are weak, but the words of
God's oath, which was later than the Law, name the Son as, for all time, the perfect
priest.
All of these passages, and their context, clearly support a literal, historical interpretation as the one
intended by the Letter to the Hebrews, trying to establish some account of a progressive revelation, a
new covenant, etc.
The letter's argumentation continues into the next chapter:
GWEB:

Hebrews 8
8:1 Now in the things which we are saying, the main point is this. We have such a
high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens, 8:2 a servant of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, not man. 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and
sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.
8:4 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are priests
who offer the gifts according to the law; 8:5 who serve a copy and shadow of the
heavenly things, even as Moses was warned by God when he was about to make the
tabernacle, for he said, "See, you shall make everything according to the pattern that
was shown to you on the mountain."* 8:6 But now he has obtained a more excellent
ministry, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which on better
promises has been given as law. 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then
no place would have been sought for a second. 8:8 For finding fault with them, he
said,
"Behold, the days come," says the Lord,
"that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah;
8:9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,
in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they
didn't continue in my covenant, and I disregarded them," says the Lord.
8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.
After those days," says the Lord;
"I will put my laws into their mind,
I will also write them on their heart.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
8:11 They will not teach every man his fellow citizen,
and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
for all will know me,

from the least of them to the greatest of them.

8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness.
I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
8:13 In that he says, "A new covenant," he has made the first old. But that which is
becoming old and grows aged is near to vanishing away.
OEB[1]
Hebrews 8
[1] To sum up what I have been saying: Such is the high priest that we have, one
who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God's Majesty in heaven,
[2] where he serves in the sanctuary, in that true tent set up by the Lord and not by
man. [3] Every high priest is appointed for the purpose of offering gifts and sacrifices
to God; it follows, therefore, that this high priest must have some offering to make.
[4] If he were, however, still on earth, he would not even be a priest, since there are
already priests who offer the gifts as the Law directs. [5] (These priests, it is true, are
engaged in a service which is only a copy and shadow of the heavenly realities, as is
shown by the directions given to Moses when he was about to construct the tent.
Look to it, are the words, that you make every part in accordance with the pattern
shown you on the mountain.) [6] But Jesus, as we see, has obtained a ministry as far
excelling theirs, as the covenant of which he is the intermediary, based, as it is, on
better promises, excels the former covenant. [7] If that first covenant had been
faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. [8] But, finding fault with
the people, God says
A time is coming, says the Lord,
When I will ratify a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of
Judah
[9] Not such a covenant as I made with their ancestors
On the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not abide by their covenant with me,
And therefore I disregarded them, says the Lord.

[10] This is the covenant that I will make with the people of Israel
After those days, says the Lord.
I will impress my laws on their minds,
And will inscribe them on their hearts;
And I will be their God,
And they will be my people.
[11] There will be no need for anyone to instruct their fellow citizen,
Or for a person to say to their relatives Learn to know the Lord;
For everyone will know me,
From the lowest to the highest.
[12] For I will be merciful to their wrong-doings, And I will no longer remember their
sins.
[13] By speaking of a new covenant, God at once renders the former covenant
obsolete; and whatever becomes obsolete and loses its force is virtually annulled.
Here, in chapter 8, the letter distinguishes between the old and new covenants, and offers an
interpretation of Yahweh's words and actions as depicted Old Testament, as supporting the view that
Jesus came to fulfill a promise, established a new order, rendered the former covenant obsolete, etc.
All of this decisively supports a literal interpretation, and an acceptance of the Jewish Scripture the
Old Testament as an authoritative source.
Purely for example, one may point out the old covenant can only become obsolete, lose force, etc., if it
exists in the first place. But it's not just that there had to be an old covenant. The source of information
generally accepted as authoritative on said covenant by the Jewish people when the letter was written
was the Old Testament, and the Letter to the Hebrews offers no other source, makes no suggestion that
the source in question was full of errors or that it had any errors at all -, and quotes from it at length,
implicitly accepting its authority as a source.
Moreover, if the author of the letter to the Hebrews had known that Old Testament Law commanded
many despicable behaviors, and was overall profoundly unjust, etc., and had believed that all of the evil
parts much of Old Testament Law, actually did not come from Yahweh, then the author would very
probably have mentioned that, lest the people the letter is meant for remain utterly confused about

many moral issues even if that wasn't the main focus of the letter. But there is not even a hint of any
of that. On the contrary, the evidence in the letter indicates that the author of the letter whoever that
was - did not realize that Old Testament Law was full of abhorrent dispositions, etc., and believed it
was all from Yahweh.
The same goes for the events depicted in the Old Testament and which give context to what the letter is
talking about, such as Not such a covenant as I made with their ancestors On the day when I took
them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.. The fact is that the Old Testament describes
events in Egypt that involve very immoral behavior on the part of both Moses and Yahweh, and that the
people the letter is meant for interpreted the Old Testament literally, without realizing that the
depictions involved very immoral behavior. But the Letter to the Hebrews remains silent, implicitly
accepting the actions depicted in the Old Testament as both real and morally good.
4.5.4. Hebrews 9. Old Testament Law.
In this chapter, the Letter to the Hebrews makes it clear that the old covenant was not as perfect as the
New Covenant. But by doing so, also the letter unmistakably regards the old covenant, with all of its
dispositions, as coming from Yahweh.
The imperfections in the old covenant the Letter to the Hebrews talks about things like not being able
to satisfy the conscience of the worshiper, but surely the letter is not talking about the appalling
commands in the Old Testament; that can be seen clearly by reading the letter itself:
GWEB:
Hebrews 9
9:1 Now indeed even the first* covenant had ordinances of divine service, and an
earthly sanctuary. 9:2 For a tabernacle was prepared. In the first part were the
lampstand, the table, and the show bread; which is called the Holy Place. 9:3 After
the second veil was the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 9:4 having a
golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in
which was a golden pot holding the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets
of the covenant; 9:5 and above it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat, of
which things we can't speak now in detail. 9:6 Now these things having been thus
prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the

services, 9:7 but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without
blood, which he offers for himself, and for the errors of the people. 9:8 The Holy
Spirit is indicating this, that the way into the Holy Place wasn't yet revealed while the
first tabernacle was still standing; 9:9 which is a symbol of the present age, where
gifts and sacrifices are offered that are incapable, concerning the conscience, of
making the worshipper perfect; 9:10 being only (with meats and drinks and various
washings) fleshly ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation.
OEB[1]
Hebrews 9
[1] It is true that even the first covenant had its regulations for divine worship, and its
sanctuary though only a material one. [2] For a tent was constructed, with an outer
part which contained the stand for the lamps, and the table, and the consecrated bread.
This is called the sanctuary. [3] The part of the tent behind the second curtain is called
the inner sanctuary. [4] In it is the gold incense-altar, and the ark containing the
covenant, completely covered with gold. In the ark is a gold casket containing the
manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets on which the covenant was written;
[5] while above it, and overshadowing the cover on which atonement was made, are
the cherubim of the presence. Now is not the time to discuss these things in detail. [6]
Such, then, was the arrangement of the tent. Into the outer part priests are constantly
going, in the discharge of their sacred duties; [7] but into the inner only the high
priest goes, and that but once a year, and never without taking the blood of a victim,
which he offers on his own behalf, and on behalf of the errors of the people. [8] By
this the Holy Spirit is teaching that the way into the sanctuary was hidden, as long as
the outer part of the tent still remained. [9] For that was only a type, to continue down
to the present time; and, in keeping with it, both gifts and sacrifices are offered,
though incapable of satisfying the conscience of the worshiper; [10] the whole system
being concerned only with food and drink and various ablutions external
ceremonials imposed until the coming of the new order.
While the letter says that it's not the place to discuss some of the details, it's talking about details

regarding the regulations for worshiping. It should be apparent that the fact that Old Testament Law is
overall very unjust, full of morally abhorrent dispositions, wasn't one of such details.
Moreover, the letter specifically identifies the Holy Spirit as teaching through those regulations for
worshiping - including by the way the sacrifice of some animals again linking Yahweh to the Old
Testament and its laws, and without ever suggesting that someone else made up much of Old Testament
Law, adding further support for the interpretation that the Letter to the Hebrews accepts Old Testament
Law as coming entirely from Yahweh.
GWEB:
Hebrews 9
9:11 But Christ having come as a high priest of the coming good things, through the
greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this
creation, 9:12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own
blood, entered in once for all into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption.
9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who
have been defiled, sanctify to the cleanness of the flesh: 9:14 how much more will the
blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to
God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 9:15 For this
reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, since a death has occurred for the
redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, that those who
have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. :16 For where a
last will and testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him who made it.
9:17 For a will is in force where there has been death, for it is never in force while he
who made it lives. 9:18 Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated
without blood. 9:19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all
the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with
water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the
people, 9:20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded
you."
OEB[1]

Hebrews 9
[11] But, when Christ came, he appeared as high priest of that better system which
was established; and he entered through that nobler and more perfect tent, not made
by human hands that is to say, not a part of this present creation. [12] Nor was it
with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, that he entered, once and
for all, into the sanctuary, and obtained our eternal deliverance. [13] For, if the blood
of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, purify those who have
been defiled (as far as ceremonial purification goes), [14] how much more will the
blood of the Christ, who, through his eternal Spirit, offered himself up to God, as a
victim without blemish, purify our consciences from a lifeless formality, and fit us for
the service of the living God! [15] And that is why he is the intermediary of a new
covenant; in order that, as a death has taken place to effect a deliverance from the
offenses committed under the first covenant, those who have received the call may
obtain the eternal inheritance promised to them. [16] Whenever such a covenant as a
will is in question, the death of the testator must of necessity be alleged. [17] For such
a covenant takes effect only on death, it does not come into force as long as the
testator is alive. [18] This explains why even the first covenant was not ratified
without the shedding of blood.
These passages continue to accept the old covenant as fully from Yahweh. Additionally, they also show
another moral error, namely the belief that a covenant somehow needs a blood sacrifice in order to
come into force. Also, the idea that the blood of Jesus would purify people for their immoral behavior
is also very confused.
The next passage is particularly interesting, because in it, the Letter to the Hebrews plainly identifies
every command in Old Testament Law given by Moses in the Book of Exodus as coming from
Yahweh:
GWEB:
Hebrews 9
9:19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people
according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and

scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 9:20
saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you."
OEB[1]
Hebrews 9
[19] For, when every command had been announced to all the people by Moses in
accordance with the Law, he took the blood of the calves and of the goats, with water,
scarlet wool, and a bunch of hyssop, and sprinkled even the book of the Law, as well
as all the people, [20] saying, as he did so This is the blood that renders valid the
covenant which God has commanded to be made with you.
So, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, every command had been announced to all of the people by
Moses according to the Law. The quotation in Hebrews This is the blood that renders valid the
covenant which God has commanded to be made with you is from Exodus 24:8, but while some of the
worst parts of Old Testament Law are not contained in Exodus but in other parts of the Old Testament,
there are very unjust ones in Exodus as well, like the one endorsing a certain form of slavery, or the one
establishing the killing of the owner of an ox in some cases if the victim is not a servant, but
establishing only a monetary compensation if the victim a servant, etc. which is also very confused in
establishing the stoning of oxen as a punishment.
Moreover, context i. e., the rest of the Letter to the Hebrews, and the intended audience indicates a
very probable full endorsement of Old Testament Law as coming from Yahweh, not only the parts in
Exodus. Still, the parts of Old Testament Law contained in Exodus suffice to show the moral confusion
of the Letter to the Hebrews.
4.5.5. Hebrews 10. Old Testament Law.
GWEB:
Hebrews 10
10:28 A man who disregards Moses' law dies without compassion on the word of two
or three witnesses. 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will he be
judged worthy of, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the
blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted
the Spirit of grace?

OEB[1]
Hebrews 10
[28] When someone disregarded the Law of Moses, they were, on the evidence of
two or three witnesses, put to death without pity. [29] How much worse then, think
you, will be the punishment deserved by those who have trampled underfoot the Son
of God, who have treated the blood that rendered the covenant valid the blood by
which they were purified as if it were not holy, and who have outraged the Spirit
of love?
First, in the MWEB translation, this passage clearly holds that Yahweh judges that the people who are
punished for breaking Mosaic Law, actually deserve the punishment they get in accodance to it.
Else, it would make no sense in this context to compare those who break Mosaic Law with those who
commit some offenses against the Son of God, the Spirit of Grace, etc., and ask how much worse
punishment the latter will be deemed worthy of, in the reader's assessment. That's because the latter
offenses will be judged by Yahweh, and so the question is how much worse punishment Yahweh will
deem the latter worthy of. But in order for that comparison to make sense given context, it's required
that Yahweh also deems the people punished by breaking Mosaic Law in this context, worthy of the
punishment they receive.
It might be objected that the passage above only refers to the application of the death penalty under
Mosaic Law, and not to the rest of of the punishments Mosaic Law imposes. But again, given context,
it is very probable that all of Mosaic Law is deemed sanctioned Yahweh and, of course, that Yahweh
agrees that the law in question imposes just punishments.
Moreover, even if we limit the matter to the cases in which the death penalty is imposed, the fact is that
Mosaic Law imposes the death penalty in many cases in abhorrent manners, and also, on people who
do not deserve to be executed for their actions, and sometimes on people who do not deserve to be
punished at all, as I argued earlier.
It might be suggested that Mosaic Law only agreed with Yahweh's moral assessments, but he didn't
actually sanctioned it. But apart from the fact that that seems very improbable in this context, in any
event that wouldn't help Christianity, since Yahweh would still be making grossly false moral
judgments.

Also, given that the Letter to the Hebrews evidently holds that Yahweh is morally perfect, and also
holds that Yahweh deems the punishments imposed by Mosaic Law to be deserved punishments or at
least, the punishment in cases in which the death penalty is imposed -, the letter is implicitly holds that
imposing the death penalty in accordance to Mosaic Law would be a case of deserved punishment, at
least until Mosaic Law becomes obsolete, with Jesus. Yet, that's a serious moral error many of the
punishments were vastly unjust, not deserved at all, as I pointed out earlier.
Second, in the OEB translation, the passage clearly endorses the use of the death penalty in accordance
to Old Testament Law, as punishment that is deserved. Else, it would make no sense in this context to
compare the violation of the Law of Moses with those offenses against the Son of God, etc., and ask
how much worse the punishment deserved by those other people will be which is what the passage
asks, according to the OEB translation. But as I mentioned, Mosaic Law imposes the death penalty in
many cases in abhorrent manners, and also, on people who do not deserve to be executed for their
actions, and sometimes people who do not deserve to be punished at all, as I've argued earlier.
Of course, in the OEB translation, the passage under consideration also implicitly holds that Old
Testament Law was from Yahweh, given context. But the claim that the death penalty under Mosaic
Law was deserved punishment is a gross moral mistake, sufficient to make a conclusive point,
regardless of whether the passage also holds that the author of Mosaic Law was Yahweh.
Still, let's take a look at the passage in question in another public domain translation, the King James
Version:
King James Version:
Hebrews 10
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who
hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant,
wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of
grace? 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will
recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
So, the King James Version of the Bible, like the GWEB I quoted earlier in this subsection, asks what
the reader thinks the person who committed some offenses against the Son of God, etc., will be

considered worthy. The same points I made in my assessment of the passage in the GWEB apply here
as well.
Other translations also allow one to make a decisive moral point against Christianity based on them. I
invite interested readers to take a look at other translations as well.
4.5.6. Hebrews 11. Faith, the Flood, treason and more.
In chapter 11, the Letter to the Hebrews promotes faith faith in their particular religion, of course -,
by means of encouragement and warnings. In order to do that, it gives examples of actions some people
carried out in the past because of faith, or without faith, commending the faith-based behaviors in
question, while condemning the ones in which the person acted without faith allegedly, the person
should have had faith.
However, there are decisive problems in this chapter too, such as the fact that some of the actions that
are commended, and which are said to be based on faith, were profoundly immoral. This is so
regardless of whether or not those were hypothetical scenarios that never happened, or historical events
though in fact, the Letter to the Hebrews clearly counts them as historical events, for all of the
reasons I've been explaining in this section, (since the rest of the letter gives this passage context) and
some I will explain below.
There are other decisive problems as well. So, let's take a closer look:
GWEB:
Hebrews 11
11:1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen. 11:2 For by
this, the elders obtained testimony.
OEB[1]
Hebrews 11
[1] Faith is the realization of things hoped for the proof of things not seen. [2] And
it was for faith that the people of old were renowned.
While this is not crucial, Hebrews 11:2 indicates in this context that the examples to be introduced are
historical, not counterfactual, metaphorical, allegorical, etc. This is in line with the previous chapters of
the letter.
GWEB:

Hebrews 11
11:7 By faith, Noah, being warned about things not yet seen, moved with godly fear,
prepared a ship for the saving of his house, through which he condemned the world,
and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
OEB[1]
Hebrews 11
[7] It was faith that enabled Noah, after he had received the divine warning about
what could not then be foreseen, to build, in reverent obedience, an ark in which to
save his family. By his faith he condemned the world, and became possessed of that
righteousness which follows on faith.
That passage is a reference to the Flood account, in which Yahweh behaves in a grossly immoral
fashion, as I pointed out earlier. While the Letter to the Hebrews does not specifically describe
Yahweh's behavior with regard to the Flood, it's implicitly accepted in this context that the Old
Testament account the source available to the Jews of the time the letter was written, and generally
accepted then - is correct.
GWEB:
Hebrews 11
11:23 By faith, Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his
parents, because they saw that he was a beautiful child, and they were not afraid of
the king's commandment. 11:24 By faith, Moses, when he had grown up, refused to
be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 11:25 choosing rather to share ill treatment
with God's people, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a time; 11:26 accounting the
reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked to the
reward. 11:27 By faith, he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he
endured, as seeing him who is invisible. 11:28 By faith, he kept the Passover, and the
sprinkling of the blood, that the destroyer of the firstborn should not touch them.
11:29 By faith, they passed through the Red Sea as on dry land. When the Egyptians
tried to do so, they were swallowed up.
OEB[1]

Hebrews 11
[23] Faith caused the parents of Moses to hide the child for three months after his
birth, for they saw that he was a beautiful child; and they would not respect the king's
order. [24] It was faith that caused Moses, when he was grown up, to refuse the title
of son of a daughter of Pharaoh. [25] He preferred sharing the hardships of God's
people to enjoying the short-lived pleasures of sin. [26] For he counted the
reproaches that are heaped on the Christ of greater value than the treasures of Egypt,
looking forward, as he did, to the reward awaiting him. [27] Faith caused him to leave
Egypt, though undaunted by the king's anger, for he was strengthened in his
endurance by the vision of the invisible God. [28] Faith led him to institute the
Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that the Destroyer might not touch the
eldest children of the Israelites. [29] Faith enabled the people to cross the Red Sea, as
if it had been dry land, while the Egyptians, when they attempted to do so, were
drowned.
Here, the Letter to the Hebrews focuses on Moses's actions. But this passage clearly implies that
Yahweh behaved as described in the Old Testament as well. In fact, Yahweh is identified as the
destroyer of the firstborns. It's apparent in context that the rest of Yahweh's actions, as described in that
part of the Old Testament i. e., the part dealing with the captivity of many ancient Israelites in Egypt,
and their escape -, also make up the scenario in which Moses allegedly acts on faith. But the problem is
that that scenario depicts very immoral actions on Yahweh's part, as I pointed out earlier. So, the Letter
to the Hebrews takes the events in Egypt as described in the Old Testament to be historical, but even
assuming otherwise, even an allegory, metaphor, or any other sort of story not meant to be taken
literally, also wouldn't be acceptable, as the allegedly morally perfect being is depicted as behaving
appallingly.
GWEB:
Hebrews 11
11:30 By faith, the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been encircled for seven
days. 11:31 By faith, Rahab the prostitute, didn't perish with those who were
disobedient, having received the spies in peace.

OEB[1]
Hebrews 11
[30] Faith caused the walls of Jericho to fall after being encircled for seven days. [31]
Faith saved Rahab, the prostitute, from perishing with the unbelievers, after she had
entertained the spies with friendliness.
The actions of Rahab are commended in this passage, as are the actions of who attacked Jericho. But
the attackers whose behavior is described in the Old Testament were human moral monsters who
committed atrocities all around, and Rahab was the evil traitor who harbored them, helping them
commit their atrocities as I mentioned earlier.
While the Letter to the Hebrews clearly takes all of these events to be historical, even assuming that the
letter wasn't meant to be taken literally in that regard but it was -, the fact remains that the letter in
question is grossly mistaken about moral matters, commending abhorrent behavior.
GWEB:
Hebrews 11
11:32 What more shall I say? For the time would fail me if I told of Gideon, Barak,
Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets; 11:33 who, through faith
subdued kingdoms, worked out righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths
of lions, 11:34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from
weakness were made strong, grew mighty in war, and caused foreign armies to flee.
OEB[1]
Hebrews 11
[32] Need I add anything more? Time would fail me if I attempted to relate the stories
of Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah, and those of David, Samuel, and the
prophets. [33] By their faith they subdued kingdoms, ruled righteously, gained the
fulfillment of God's promises, shut the mouths of lions,
First, they didn't rule righteously, as the OEB translation claims. Those who ruled, ruled applying the
overall profoundly immoral Old Testament Law, which contains despicable commands.
Second, and with respect to the MWEB translation, in this context faith is is assurance of things hoped
for, proof of things not seen. Now, if they have proof or perhaps that means conclusive evidence, in

this context -, that may be useful, but if that's what the letter is talking about, it's puzzling that that
would be called faith. It would be a very unusual usage. Else, it seems faith involves jumping to
conclusions, assigning some events more probability than what they should, etc., which involves some
sort of error on its own, and regardless of what they did out of faith.
In any event, the passage commends those people for certain actions regarded as based on faith, and the
actions so regarded are or at least include salient actions described in the Old Testament in which they
trust Yahweh, follow his commands, etc.; this should be clear in context, and in particular considering
that those Old Testament depictions are the source accepted as accurate by the people the letter was
written to, and no other source is given.
Yet, many of those actions are horribly immoral. For example, Samuel behaved despicably by
Yahweh's orders in the context of the attack on Amalek, described earlier.
4.5.7. Hebrews 12. Moses, and Old Testament Law.
GWEB:
Hebrews 12
12:18 For you have not come to a mountain that might be touched, and that burned
with fire, and to blackness, darkness, storm, 12:19 the sound of a trumpet, and the
voice of words; which those who heard it begged that not one more word should be
spoken to them, 12:20 for they could not stand that which was commanded, "If even
an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned; 12:21 and so fearful was the
appearance, that Moses said, "I am terrified and trembling." 12:22 But you have come
to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to
innumerable multitudes of angels, 12:23 to the general assembly and assembly of the
firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men
made perfect, 12:24 to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of
sprinkling that speaks better than that of Abel. 12:25 See that you don't refuse him
who speaks. For if they didn't escape when they refused him who warned on the
Earth, how much more will we not escape who turn away from him who warns from
heaven, 12:26 whose voice shook the earth then, but now he has promised, saying,
"Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heavens."

OEB: [1]
Hebrews 12:
[18] It is not to tangible flaming fire that you have drawn near, nor to gloom, and
darkness, and storm, [19] and the blast of a trumpet, and an audible voice. Those
who heard that voice entreated that they might hear no more, [20] for they could not
bear to think of the command If even an animal touches the mountain, it is to be
stoned to death; [21] and so fearful was the sight that Moses said I tremble with
fear. [22] No, but it is to Mount Zion that you have drawn near, the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to countless hosts of angels, [23] to the festal gathering
and assemblage of God's firstborn whose names are enrolled in heaven, to God the
judge of all people, to the spirits of the righteous who have attained perfection, [24] to
Jesus, the intermediary of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that tells of
better things than the blood of Abel. [25] Beware how you refuse to hear him who is
speaking. For, if the Israelites did not escape punishment, when they refused to listen
to him who taught them on earth the divine will, far worse will it be for us, if we turn
away from him who is teaching us from heaven.
Once again, the Letter to the Hebrews compares events described in the Old Testament including the
punishment Yahweh imposed to those ancient Israelites for their actions - with the situation at the time
of the letter, and the kind of punishment the people the letter is meant for should expect if they turned
away from their religion. In making that comparison, the letter implicitly accepts as historic some
events described in the Old Testament.
In particular, the command "If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned is from Exodus
19:12-13. Apart from the moral confusion spread by such a command, which implicitly holds that oxen
and many other non-human animals might be guilty and deserve to be stoned to death a mistake also
made elsewhere in Exodus -, here the letter implicitly holds that those events really happened, that
Yahweh gave that command. This is, of course, in line with the rest of the Letter to the Hebrews.
Also, the quotation in which Moses says he's terrified, is from Deuteronomy 9:19. The events described
in Deuteronomy 9 and the following chapters include Yahweh's sanctioning a large portion of Old
Testament Law, including some abhorrent commands, and false moral claims or implications, as I've

argued earlier. While the Letter to the Hebrews does not mention those other commands specifically,
given how the letter is using Deuteronomy as a reliable historical source, and given that Yahweh gives
those commands in the same context within the story as the event that the Letter to the Hebrews does
quote, and generally given the points I made earlier in this section, the most probable interpretation by
far is that the Letter to the Hebrews implicitly supports the attribution of all of Old Testament Law to
Yahweh.
Still, that result is not required. Even if we limit the case to some parts of Old Testament Law
including all of the parts in Exodus, for example, or the parts involving the death penalty -, that shows
conclusively that the Letter to the Hebrews contains serious moral errors.
4.5.8. Hebrews 13. Moses, Joshua and more.
In the last chapter, the Letter to the Hebrews keeps making references to both events described in the
Old Testament, and legal dispositions contained in it:
GWEB:
Hebrews 13
13:5 Be free from the love of money, content with such things as you have, for he has
said, "I will in no way leave you, neither will I in any way forsake you."
OEB: [1]
Hebrews 13
[5] Do not let your conduct be ruled by the love of money. Be content with what you
have, for God himself has said
I will never forsake you, nor will I ever abandon you.
The reference in this case is to Deuteronomy 31:6. As usual, the Old Testament is taken as an
authoritative historical record, and in particular a record about what Yahweh said. But let's take a look
at Deuteronomy 31:6, and its context:
GWEB:
Deuteronomy 31
31:1 Moses went and spoke these words to all Israel. 31:2 He said to them, I am one
hundred twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: and Yahweh
has said to me, You shall not go over this Jordan. 31:3 Yahweh your God, he will go

over before you; he will destroy these nations from before you, and you shall
dispossess them: and Joshua, he shall go over before you, as Yahweh has spoken.
31:4 Yahweh will do to them as he did to Sihon and to Og, the kings of the Amorites,
and to their land; whom he destroyed. 31:5 Yahweh will deliver them up before you,
and you shall do to them according to all the commandment which I have
commanded you. 31:6 Be strong and of good courage, don't be afraid, nor be scared
of them: for Yahweh your God, he it is who does go with you; he will not fail you,
nor forsake you. 31:7 Moses called to Joshua, and said to him in the sight of all Israel,
Be strong and of good courage: for you shall go with this people into the land which
Yahweh has sworn to their fathers to give them; and you shall cause them to inherit it.
31:8 Yahweh, he it is who does go before you; he will be with you, he will not fail
you, neither forsake you: don't be afraid, neither be dismayed. 31:9 Moses wrote this
law, and delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant
of Yahweh, and to all the elders of Israel.
The Letter to the Hebrews clearly holds that Moses was indeed relaying Yahweh's message, and not
just making things up. But the message includes the abhorrent promise of victory to Joshua and his
accomplices, who under Yahweh's commands, as described in the Old Testament committed
numerous atrocities.
GWEB:
Hebrews 13
13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the holy tabernacle have no right
to eat. 13:11 For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the holy
place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside of the camp. 13:12
Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood,
suffered outside of the gate.
OEB: [1]
Hebrews 13
We are not without an altar; but it is one at which those who still worship in the tent
have no right to eat. [11] The bodies of those animals whose blood is brought by the

high priest into the sanctuary, as an offering for sin, are burnt outside the camp. [12]
And so Jesus, also, to purify the people by his own blood, suffered outside the gate.
The reference here is to Leviticus 16:27, in which the sacrifices in question are regulated. But the claim
that Jesus suffered also to purify the people by his own blood a vast moral confusion on its own, of
course -, and generally the context, identifies Yahweh as the author of the disposition in question.
Once again, the Old Testament in this case, Leviticus is taken as an authoritative source which is
in line with the rest of the Letter to the Hebrews.
5. Some of Jesuss commandments, moral claims or implications.
In this section, I will address some of Jesus's commands, moral claims or implications as stated in the
Gospels.
Now, I argued earlier in several parts of this essay, and in addition to other points connecting the New
and Old Testaments - that at least several books of the New Testament including the Gospels of Mark,
Matthew and Luke claim or imply that Old Testament Law was authored by Yahweh, and yet that
Yahweh is morally good even perfect. That's enough to establish that Christianity is not true, for
reasons I've explained earlier, when I addressed Old Testament Law.
However, some Christians mistakenly interpret the Old Testament or the relevant parts of it very
differently. Some other Christians just reject much of the Old Testament and even the New Testament,
misinterpreting some of the the parts of the Bible they accept, and in particular failing to realize how
some of the parts they accept endorse some of the parts they reject.
In fact, some liberal Christians might even propose a Gospels only version of Christianity, or even a
more limited version than that, perhaps accepting exclusively the Sermon on the Mount.
So, for the sake of thoroughness I will address some of Jesus's moral claims, moral implications and
commandments, showing that even the most limited versions of Christianity fail on moral grounds,
even if the moral shortcomings of some limited versions are less serious than those of some, more
traditional versions.
5.1. Jesus commands that people love Yahweh.
In two passages in the Gospel, Jesus claimed that two commandments were the greatest or first;
translations vary -, and the second. Let us consider the allegedly greatest one first:
GWEB:

Matthew 22:
22:33 When the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. 22:34 But
the Pharisees, when they heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, gathered
themselves together. 22:35 One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him.
22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" 22:37 Jesus said to
him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and
with all your mind.'* 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. 22:39 A second
likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'* 22:40 The whole law and
the prophets depend on these two commandments."
Mark 12:
12:28 One of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together. Knowing that he
had answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the greatest of all?"
12:29 Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is
one: 12:30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.'* This is the first
commandment. 12:31 The second is like this, 'You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.'* There is no other commandment greater than these."
OEB: [1]
Matthew 22:
34 When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they collected
together. 35 Then one of them, a Student of the law, to test him, asked this question
36 Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law? 37 His answer was:
You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and
with all your mind. 38 This is the great first commandment. 39 The second, which is
like it, is this You must love your neighbor as you love yourself. 40 On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Mark 12:
28 Then came up one of the teachers of the law who had heard their discussions.
Knowing that Jesus had answered them wisely, he asked him this question: What is

the first of all the commandments?

29 The first, answered Jesus, is Hear, Israel; the Lord our God is the one Lord;
30 and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your mind, and with all your strength. 31 The second is this You
must love your neighbor as you love yourself. There is no commandment greater
than these.
In the GWEB and OEB translations, the commandment says God, and Lord, rather than Yahweh.
But it seems clear in context that he was talking about Yahweh.
To see that, lets consider a longer quotation, including previous passages, and also corresponding
passages from the Old Testament.
GWEB:
Deuteronomy 6
6:4 Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one: 6:5 and you shall love Yahweh
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. 6:6
These words, which I command you this day, shall be on your heart; 6:7 and you shall
teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your
house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
Leviticus 19
19:18 "'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of
your people; but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh. 19:19 "'You
shall keep my statutes. "'You shall not crossbreed different kinds of animals.
"'you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; "'neither shall there come upon
on you a garment made of two kinds of material. 19:20 "'If a man lies carnally with a
woman who is a slave girl, pledged to be married to another man, and not ransomed,
or given her freedom; they shall be punished. They shall not be put to death, because
she was not free. 19:21 He shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, to the door of
the Tent of Meeting, even a ram for a trespass offering. 19:22 The priest shall make
atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before Yahweh for his sin
which he has committed: and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.

Matthew 22
22:23 On that day Sadducees (those who say that there is no resurrection) came to
him. They asked him, 22:24 saying, "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies, having no
children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed for his brother.' 22:25
Now there were with us seven brothers. The first married and died, and having no
seed left his wife to his brother. 22:26 In like manner the second also, and the third, to
the seventh. 22:27 After them all, the woman died. 22:28 In the resurrection therefore,
whose wife will she be of the seven? For they all had her." 22:29 But Jesus answered
them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like
God's angels in heaven. 22:31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, haven't
you read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 22:32 'I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?'* God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living." 22:33 When the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at
his teaching. 22:34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had silenced the
Sadducees, gathered themselves together. 22:35 One of them, a lawyer, asked him a
question, testing him. 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the
law?" 22:37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, and with all your mind.'* 22:38 This is the first and great
commandment. 22:39 A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.'* 22:40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two
commandments."
Mark 12:
12:18 There came to him Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection. They
asked him, saying, 12:19 "Teacher, Moses wrote to us, 'If a man's brother dies, and
leaves a wife behind him, and leaves no children, that his brother should take his
wife, and raise up offspring for his brother.' 12:20 There were seven brothers. The
first took a wife, and dying left no offspring. 12:21 The second took her, and died,
leaving no children behind him. The third likewise; 12:22 and the seven took her and

left no children. Last of all the woman also died. 12:23 In the resurrection, when they
rise, whose wife will she be of them? For the seven had her as a wife." 12:24 Jesus
answered them, "Isn't this because you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor
the power of God? 12:25 For when they will rise from the dead, they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 12:26 But about the dead,
that they are raised; haven't you read in the book of Moses, about the Bush, how God
spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob'*? 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are therefore
badly mistaken." 12:28 One of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together.
Knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the
greatest of all?" 12:29 Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our
God, the Lord is one: 12:30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.'* This is the
first commandment. 12:31 The second is like this, 'You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.'* There is no other commandment greater than these."
OEB: [1]
Matthew 22
23 That same day some Sadducees came up to Jesus, maintaining that there is no
resurrection. Their question was this: 24 Teacher, Moses said should a man
die without children, the mans brother will become the husband of the widow, and
raise a family for his brother. 25 Now we had living among us seven brothers; of
whom the eldest married and died, and, as he had no family, left his wife for his
brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and the third brothers, and indeed
to all the seven. 27 The woman herself died last of all. 28 At the resurrection, then,
whose wife will she be out of the seven, all of them having been married to her?
29 Your mistake, replied Jesus, is due to your ignorance of the scriptures, and of
the power of God. 30 For at the resurrection there is no marrying or being married,
but all who rise are as angels in heaven. 31 As to the resurrection of the dead, have
you not read these words of God 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of

Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of dead people, but of living. 33 The
crowds, who had been listening to him, were greatly struck with his teaching.
34 When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they collected
together. 35 Then one of them, a Student of the law, to test him, asked this question
36 Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law? 37 His answer was:
You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and
with all your mind. 38 This is the great first commandment. 39 The second, which is
like it, is this You must love your neighbor as you love yourself. 40 On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Mark 12
18 Next came some Sadducees the men who maintain that there is no resurrection.
Their question was this 19 Teacher, in our scriptures Moses decreed that, should a
mans brother die, leaving a widow but no child, the man should take the widow as
his wife, and raise up a family for his brother. 20 There were once seven brothers; of
whom the eldest took a wife, but died and left no family; 21 and the second took her,
and died without family; and so did the third. 22 All the seven died and left no family.
The woman herself died last of all. 23 At the resurrection whose wife will she be, all
seven brothers having had her as their wife?
24 Is not the reason of your mistake, answered Jesus, your ignorance of the
scriptures and of the power of God? 25 When people rise from the dead, there is no
marrying or being married; but they are as angels in heaven.
26 As to the dead, and the fact that they rise, have you never read in the book of
Moses, in the passage about the Bush, how God spoke to him saying I am the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not God of
dead people, but of living. You are greatly mistaken.
28 Then came up one of the teachers of the law who had heard their discussions.
Knowing that Jesus had answered them wisely, he asked him this question: What is
the first of all the commandments?
29 The first, answered Jesus, is Hear, Israel; the Lord our God is the one Lord;

30 and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your mind, and with all your strength. 31 The second is this You
must love your neighbor as you love yourself. There is no commandment greater
than these.
Given that context, its clear that Jesus was talking about Yahweh.
Now, someone might suggest that Jesus meant God, using the word God in one of the senses in
which its commonly used in present-day philosophy of religion for instance , like the ones I
mentioned earlier, even if there was also an implicit claim that Yahweh is God in one of those senses.
But that seems implausible given the context, as is implausible that Jesus was talking about any
neighbor beyond Israel.
But lets let that pass.
Even if Jesus meant God, at least he implied that Yahweh was God, and the Israelites and their
descendants, including the Jewish people of Jesuss time and his interlocutors, ought to love Yahweh.
Yet, it should be clear that they had no such moral obligation.
For example, his interlocutors believed that Old Testament Law came in fact from Yahweh, and that the
events described in the Old Testament and which I addressed in earlier sections, actually happened.
Based on those beliefs, if they had considered the moral issues properly, they would have concluded
that Yahweh was a moral monster not that they should have believed, upon reflection, that he existed,
but lets leave that aside for the sake of the argument -, and its obviously not the case that they ought to
have loved Yahweh. Nor is it the case that we should love that monstrous being, regardless of whether
he exists.
But let's leave aside the connection to Yahweh, for the sake of the argument.
Even then, its not even the case that we have a moral obligation to love God, either. If someone claims
otherwise, given how the claim flies on the face of one's moral sense, the burden would be on them;
still, I will provide some counterarguments by means of hypothetical scenarios later.
Objection 5.1.1. Yahweh isnt a moral monster. Precisely one of the things Jesuss interlocutors
should have understood is that the Old Testament included many false claims about Yahweh, and
in particular, not all of the law contained in the Old Testament came from Yahweh.
Reply:

1. Jesuss interlocutors were in no position to conclude that from Jesuss words in that context. Quite
the opposite. Jesus was implicitly accepting all of the Old Testament, and that should be clear from
reading the relevant passages.
While its true that plausibly many if not all of them should have concluded if they reflected on the
matter, at least on their own that Yahweh does not exist and so nothing came from Yahweh, thats
another matter, which Im leaving aside from the sake of the argument.
2. Lets consider again a scenario I brought up earlier:
Lets say that Joseph was a Rabbi born 100 years before Jesus was born, and who died aged 70. So,
Joseph did not have access to Jesuss commandments, and all he knew about Yahweh was what was
contained in the Old Testament which he studied thoroughly, reflecting on the events described and
claims made therein, etc.
Then, clearly, Joseph should not have followed many of the commands if he found himself in the
situations specified in them. After reflecting on the matter carefully, he should have realized that the
Old Testament depicted the behavior of a moral monster a non-existent one, but lets leave that part
aside for the sake of the argument.
In particular, its intuitively clear that Joseph had no moral obligation to love Yahweh. So, Jesuss
moral implication that all those people have an obligation to love Yahweh, was false. He was
promoting at least some false moral beliefs, either by mistake, or deliberately. Either way, Christianity
is false.
3. Regardless, even if we limit the command to living God rather than the monstrous Yahweh -, it is
false that we all have a moral obligation to love God.
Objection 5.1.2. Yahweh isnt a moral monster. He is God, and much of the Old Testament is
false. Moreover, the claim was about God, and we all have a moral obligation to love God.
Reply:
1. While many of the claims in the Old Testament are false e. g., Yahweh does not exist -, the point is
that Jesus never suggested so, and his interlocutors didnt have any good reasons to think he did.
2. Even leaving a. aside, the claim that we all have a moral obligation to love God is false.
For example, lets consider the following scenarios:
Scenario 5.1.2.2.1

Bob tells Alice that, say, black holes do not exist. But Alice makes an assessment based on the
evidence available to her, and continues to believe that they do exist. Bob also tells Alice that
there is a multiverse with many parallel universes. Alice makes an assessment based on the
evidence available to her, and does not acquire the belief that such a multiverse exists.
In addition, Bob tells Alice that God exists. Similarly, Alice makes an assessment based on the
evidence available to her (including philosophical arguments, perhaps), and she does not acquire
the belief that God exists.
In this scenario, Alice does not even believe that God exists. Shes made her assessment, and her
conclusion is otherwise. She does not have the capability to come to believe, by an act to will, in the
existence of a multiverse, or the existence of God for that matter nor that she would have a moral
obligation to do so, if she could.
It should be clear that she does not have a moral obligation to love an entity she does not even believe
exists. Granted, its possible to have some feelings for characters whose existence one does not believe
in, like some characters on TV or movies, but thats not morally obligatory. And its intuitively clear
that she does not have a moral obligation to love God.
Granted, someone might argue that she has a moral obligation to assess the evidence better and
conclude that God exists. But there is no good reason to think she made a mistaken assessment of the
evidence, including philosophical arguments. That would have to be argued for by the theist. Moreover,
even if she made an error, it does not follow that her error would be morally culpable, and thats
intuitively implausible as well.
Still, lets consider another scenario.
Scenario 5.1.2.2.2
Tapi lives in a society in which there is no belief that God exists. In fact, people do not even have
a word that means God. Nor do they have any belief or even a concept of a superhuman ruler of
the universe, or anything like it.
Tapi spends most of her time gathering different types of food, to sustain herself and her family.
She has no knowledge of philosophy of religion whatsoever. She loves her family, but it is not the
case that she loves God, just as its not the case that, say, she finds black holes terrifying. She
does not even have a concept of a black hole, or of God.

Its rather obvious that Tapi is not behaving immorally by not believing that God exists, or for not
loving God an entity she does not even have a concept of.
But since shes not believing immorally, shes not breaking any moral obligations. Hence, a claim that
she has a moral obligation to love God would be false.
Granted, someone might say that she has a sensus divinitatis and she should use it to know God. But
the existence of such sense would require evidence.
Moreover, while Tapi is a hypothetical character, people relevantly like her did and probably do exist,
and promoting the belief, even after considering the evidence, that all those people are being immoral is
not only baseless: its at least usually immoral. People who have access to evidence ought to assess the
evidence rationally and realize that they have no case at all against people like Tapi, and that having no
case at all, promoting the belief that those people are being immoral is itself an immoral attack on those
peoples character.
Of course, promoting that belief is not remotely as immoral as, say, the behavior of some ancient
Israelites who participated in a massacre of an entire population including children because they
believed or even if they knew that Yahweh commanded so , or participated in the stoning to death
of a woman for [allegedly, but even if true and established properly, in addition to the conditions
required by their laws] not being a virgin when she was delivered to a man her father chose to deliver
her to. So, Im not suggesting that all of the immoral actions Im assessing in this essay are immoral to
similar degrees. But even though there are vast differences in degree, it remains immoral to promote
such belief, at least usually perhaps, there are excuses in specific situations, like serious threats in
case a person fails to promote them.
In any case, the point remains that the claim that we all ought to love God is false, regardless of the
morality of the actions of each person promoting such belief today.
Objection 5.1.3. Jesus did not mean that everyone ought to love God. If someone non-culpably
does not believe that God exists, clearly there is no such moral obligation.
Reply:
1. Considering context and assuming that he did make such claims, Jesus was talking about Yahweh,
and was talking the ancient Israelites and the Jewish people of Jesuss time, as well as their future
Jewish descendants. And he was making a false claim, as argued above.

2. Even if we accepted this objection for the sake of the argument, in any case, Jesuss claim or
implication that one ought to love ones neighbor as one loves oneself is false, as I will argue in the
next subsection.
5.2. Jesus commands that some people love their neighbors as they love themselves.
The commandment identified by Jesus as the second was to love ones neighbor as one loves oneself:
GWEB:
Matthew 22:
22:33 When the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. 22:34 But
the Pharisees, when they heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, gathered
themselves together. 22:35 One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him.
22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" 22:37 Jesus said to
him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and
with all your mind.'* 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. 22:39 A second
likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'* 22:40 The whole law and
the prophets depend on these two commandments."
Mark 12:
12:28 One of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together. Knowing that he
had answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the greatest of all?"
12:29 Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is
one: 12:30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.'* This is the first
commandment. 12:31 The second is like this, 'You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.'* There is no other commandment greater than these."
OEB: [1]
Matthew 22:
34 When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they collected
together. 35 Then one of them, a Student of the law, to test him, asked this question
36 Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law? 37 His answer was:
You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and

with all your mind. 38 This is the great first commandment. 39 The second, which is
like it, is this You must love your neighbor as you love yourself. 40 On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Mark 12:
28 Then came up one of the teachers of the law who had heard their discussions.
Knowing that Jesus had answered them wisely, he asked him this question: What is
the first of all the commandments?
29 The first, answered Jesus, is Hear, Israel; the Lord our God is the one Lord;
30 and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your mind, and with all your strength. 31 The second is this You
must love your neighbor as you love yourself. There is no commandment greater
than these.
So, in those passages, Jesus is implying that some people have a moral obligation to love their
neighbors as they love themselves, and so that it would be immoral not to do so.
So, two questions here are whom the commandment is directed at, and how should one interpret
neighbor. Lets consider some context:
The commandment was given to a Jewish audience of Jesuss time, and his audience would have
understood it in the context of the respective Old Testament commandment, so it would have been
understood as a command given by Yahweh to Israel where Israel includes the ancient Israelites and
the Jewish people of that time, and also their future descendants or at least some of them.
Also, the command was given in Leviticus, alongside other commands of behaviors that were not
actually morally obligatory, and even many commands to engage in behaviors that were morally
wicked though Jesuss interlocutors failed to realize that they were wicked, believing that following
those commands was morally obligatory for those to whom the commands were given.
GWEB:
Leviticus 19
19:18 "'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of
your people; but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh. 19:19 "'You
shall keep my statutes. "'You shall not crossbreed different kinds of animals. "'you

shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; "'neither shall there come upon on
you a garment made of two kinds of material. 19:20 "'If a man lies carnally with a
woman who is a slave girl, pledged to be married to another man, and not ransomed,
or given her freedom; they shall be punished. They shall not be put to death, because
she was not free. 19:21 He shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, to the door of
the Tent of Meeting, even a ram for a trespass offering. 19:22 The priest shall make
atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before Yahweh for his sin
which he has committed: and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.
It is clear that this is the relevant context of the commandment, if one considers who
Jesuss interlocutors were, and his words:
GWEB:
Matthew 22
22:23 On that day Sadducees (those who say that there is no resurrection) came to
him. They asked him, 22:24 saying, "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies, having no
children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed for his brother.' 22:25
Now there were with us seven brothers. The first married and died, and having no
seed left his wife to his brother. 22:26 In like manner the second also, and the third, to
the seventh. 22:27 After them all, the woman died. 22:28 In the resurrection therefore,
whose wife will she be of the seven? For they all had her." 22:29 But Jesus answered
them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like
God's angels in heaven. 22:31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, haven't
you read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 22:32 'I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?'* God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living." 22:33 When the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at
his teaching. 22:34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had silenced the
Sadducees, gathered themselves together. 22:35 One of them, a lawyer, asked him a
question, testing him. 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the
law?" 22:37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,

with all your soul, and with all your mind.'* 22:38 This is the first and great
commandment. 22:39 A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.'* 22:40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two
commandments."
Mark 12
12:18 There came to him Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection. They
asked him, saying, 12:19 "Teacher, Moses wrote to us, 'If a man's brother dies, and
leaves a wife behind him, and leaves no children, that his brother should take his
wife, and raise up offspring for his brother.' 12:20 There were seven brothers. The
first took a wife, and dying left no offspring. 12:21 The second took her, and died,
leaving no children behind him. The third likewise; 12:22 and the seven took her and
left no children. Last of all the woman also died. 12:23 In the resurrection, when they
rise, whose wife will she be of them? For the seven had her as a wife." 12:24 Jesus
answered them, "Isn't this because you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor
the power of God? 12:25 For when they will rise from the dead, they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 12:26 But about the dead,
that they are raised; haven't you read in the book of Moses, about the Bush, how God
spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob'*? 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are therefore
badly mistaken." 12:28 One of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together.
Knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the
greatest of all?" 12:29 Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our
God, the Lord is one: 12:30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.'* This is the
first commandment. 12:31 The second is like this, 'You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.'* There is no other commandment greater than these."
OEB: [1]
Matthew 22
23 That same day some Sadducees came up to Jesus, maintaining that there is no

resurrection. Their question was this: 24 Teacher, Moses said should a man
die without children, the mans brother will become the husband of the widow, and
raise a family for his brother. 25 Now we had living among us seven brothers; of
whom the eldest married and died, and, as he had no family, left his wife for his
brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and the third brothers, and indeed
to all the seven. 27 The woman herself died last of all. 28 At the resurrection, then,
whose wife will she be out of the seven, all of them having been married to her?
29 Your mistake, replied Jesus, is due to your ignorance of the scriptures, and of
the power of God. 30 For at the resurrection there is no marrying or being married,
but all who rise are as angels in heaven. 31 As to the resurrection of the dead, have
you not read these words of God 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of dead people, but of living. 33
The crowds, who had been listening to him, were greatly struck with his teaching.
34 When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they collected
together. 35 Then one of them, a Student of the law, to test him, asked this question
36 Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law? 37 His answer was:
You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and
with all your mind. 38 This is the great first commandment. 39 The second, which is
like it, is this You must love your neighbor as you love yourself. 40 On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Mark 12
18 Next came some Sadducees the men who maintain that there is no resurrection.
Their question was this 19 Teacher, in our scriptures Moses decreed that, should a
mans brother die, leaving a widow but n0o child, the man should take the widow as
his wife, and raise up a family for his brother. 20 There were once seven brothers; of
whom the eldest took a wife, but died and left no family; 21 and the second took her,
and died without family; and so did the third. 22 All the seven died and left no family.
The woman herself died last of all. 23. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, all
seven brothers having had her as their wife?

24 Is not the reason of your mistake, answered Jesus, your ignorance of the
scriptures and of the power of God? 25 When people rise from the dead, there is no
marrying or being married; but they are as angels in heaven.
26 As to the dead, and the fact that they rise, have you never read in the book of
Moses, in the passage about the Bush, how God spoke to him saying I am the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not God of
dead people, but of living. You are greatly mistaken.
28 Then came up one of the teachers of the law who had heard their discussions.
Knowing that Jesus had answered them wisely, he asked him this question: What is
the first of all the commandments?
29 The first, answered Jesus, is Hear, Israel; the Lord our God is the one Lord;
30 and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your mind, and with all your strength. 31 The second is this You
must love your neighbor as you love yourself. There is no commandment greater
than these.
Given context, its clear that he was talking about ancient Israelites, as well as their Jewish descendants
of his time, and their future Jewish descendants. Those were the people who allegedly had that moral
obligation, and it was an alleged moral obligation to love other people of the same tribe.
Yet, there generally is no moral obligation to love ones neighbor as one does not love oneself, and that
was no different in the case of the members of that particular social group.
Granted, they had a law commanding so, but then again, even if an otherwise legitimate government
were to give a command of that sort, that would not make it morally obligatory. There are limits to
what governments may legitimately command. Of course, if the commander is not an otherwise
legitimate government, but the moral monster Yahweh or someone claiming to speak in Yahwehs
name, that also would not make loving ones neighbors as one love oneself, morally obligatory.
Incidentally and to address potential objections, leaving aside the historical connection as I
mentioned, generally its not the case that one has a moral obligation to love ones neighbor as one
loves oneself. This is intuitively clear, but to give a more specific example to support that assessment,
lets consider the following scenario:

Scenario 5.2.a.
Alices house is next to Mary and Bobs house Bob is Marys husband.
They have been neighbors for a few months, since Alice moved into her new house. They dont
know each other very well, but they say hello when they run into each other, and generally are
civil neighbors, with no conflict.
One day, Alice sees an ambulance in front of Bobs house, which then leaves.
For a couple of days, she does not hear from her neighbors. Then, Mary shows up, and they have
the following conversation:
Alice: Hello, how are you?
Mary: Not well, actually. My husband is in the hospital, with a kidney disease. He needs a
donor.
Alice: Oh, Im sorry to hear that. I hope he gets better soon.
Mary: Thank you.
Then, they go into their respective houses.
A few days later, Alice hears the doorbell, sees its Mary, and opens:
Mary: Hello, how are you?
Alice: Im alright. How about you?
Mary: Not good. My husband doesnt have much time without a kidney, and weve not
found a compatible donor.
Alice: Oh, thats horrible. But you may still find a donor.
Mary: Yes, we hope so.
Alice: So, how may I help you?
Mary: I would like to ask you to go to he hospital and get tested, to see whether youre a
compatible donor. If you are, I would like you to donate one of your kidneys to Bob.
Alice is shocked by this reply, but politely and sincerely says that even though she wishes Bob
well, and hes a nice neighbor, she will not sacrifice a kidney for him.
It is apparent that, in the scenario, Alice does not behave immorally. She would not behave immorally
if she agreed to get tested and donate her kidney to Bob in case of compatibility, either. [15] But she
has no obligation to do so.

Yet, if she loved Bob as much as she loves herself, its clear that in nearly all such situations she
would be willing to sacrifice a kidney to save his life. But she does not love him as much as she loves
herself, and she isnt will to sacrifice her kidney.
Claiming that Alice behaved immorally because she did not love Bob to the extent to which she loves
herself would be an unjust accusation of immorally against someone who is not doing anything
immoral. And while Alice is a hypothetical character in a hypothetical scenario, the same applies to
actual cases in which people do not love their neighbors as the love themselves.
To be clear, Im not suggesting that such promotion is nearly as immoral as some of the other actions
Ive considered in this essay. For instance, promoting such beliefs today is never remotely as immoral
as, say, the actions of a person who, in ancient Israel, participated in the burning of two women and one
man to death for engaging in a forbidden sort of marriage, and just because that was their law.
But regardless, the belief one has a moral obligation to love ones neighbors as one loves oneself is, as
a universal claim about adult, normal humans, false and furthermore, its false in at least nearly all
cases: in other words, at least nearly always in real scenarios, its not the case that one has such moral
obligation.
Given that at least upon reflection -, people should refrain from promoting it, generally there might
be excuses, of course, like sufficient threats. But Im considering usual cases.
Moreover, regardless of the morality of the promotion of such false moral belief, the fact remains that
its a false moral belief, and so Christianity is false.
Objection 5.2.1. Jesus meant to extend his commandments to others. It wasnt only for Israel.
And the term neighbor also should not be understood as limited to other ancient Israelites, or
Jews, etc. Moreover, Yahweh was not a moral monster, and Jesuss was implicitly saying that
much of the law in the Old Testament did not come from Yahweh, since Yahweh is a loving
creator.
Reply:
1. That interpretation ignores much of the context. I already explained what the context was, above.
2. Lets leave 1. aside for the sake of the argument. In any event, the claim that generally one love ones
neighbor as one loves oneself is false, as explained above.
So, one way or another, Jesus was still making false moral claims.

Objection 5.2.2. In the scenario, Alice has no moral obligation to get a test. Her obligation is to
love Bob as she loves herself, but not to donate her kidney.
Reply:
The point is that she did not love her neighbor as she loved herself, but if she had, then she would
plausibly had accepted to get herself tested, and also would have given him her kidney if compatible.
So, if she refuses to get tested and/or donate her kidney, she would in at least nearly many scenarios
be breaking her moral obligation to love her neighbor as she loves herself, if she had such moral
obligation. But shes not doing anything immoral, since there is no such moral obligation.
Objection 5.2.3. In the scenario, the situation is not relevantly analogous to her sacrificing a
kidney to save her own life, since in that case, the kidney would be lost anyway if she died.
So, the fact that she refuses to give a kidney to save Bobs life, but she would sacrifice a kidney to
save her own life, does not indicate that she does not love Bob as much as she loves herself.
Reply:
1. That does not make the case not relevantly analogous, since the point is that if she loved Bob as
much as she loves herself, she would be at least, in nearly all such situations willing to sacrifice a
kidney to save his life.
2. For that matter, one may just come up with alternative hypothetical scenarios, like:
Lets say that Alice is right-handed, and so is Bob, and his right hand is about to get cut off by a
machine, but she can sacrifice a finger and the machine will automatically stop. She has no way
of stopping the machine without sacrificing a finger. If she loved Bob as much as she loves
herself, she would sacrifice her left little finger in order to save his right hand, just as she would
sacrifice her left little finger in order to save her own right hand if she had to. However, Alice
chooses not to sacrifice her left little finger or any other finger to save Bobs right hand. But shes
not done anything morally wrong. [15]
The details are left to the reader, but the point is the same, namely that this kind of scenarios show that
there is no moral obligation to love ones neighbor as one loves oneself.
3. For that matter, we may even stipulate that she does not love him as much as she loves herself.
The examples are just a means of illustrating the point that human beings usually and normally do not
love their neighbors as their love themselves or, for that matter, as they love their parents, children,

siblings, etc. -, and thats not always or usually immoral on their part.
However, the examples are not needed, since one may use ones sense of right and wrong to assess that
its not true that a human being who does not love her neighbors as much as she loves herself is being
immoral just because of that.
Objection 5.2.4. In the scenario, Alice has no moral obligation to get a test. Her obligation is to
love Bob as she loves herself, but not to donate her kidney. She acted immorally by not loving
Bob as she loves herself. She should have. But its not the case that she should have donated her
kidney. The same goes for the hand scenario.
Reply:
1. How is she supposed to love her neighbor as she loves herself, while her behavior does not match
what a person who loves her neighbor as she loves herself would behave?
2. In any case, the claim that she acted immorally still flies on the face of our moral intuitions, and
there is no justification for the accusation against Alice.
3. Furthermore, while not needed, we may even consider scenario in which the neighbor is, say, Jack, a
serial rapist and killer who just targeted her and was stopped by the police just in time. Or lets say that
Jack is Bobs neighbor, and brutally murdered Bobs daughter, before being arrested. Its pretty clear
that Bob is not being immoral if he does not love Jack as he loves himself or at all.
But we dont need extreme scenarios to show that there is no general moral obligation to love ones
neighbor as one loves oneself. The original scenario, or the fingers variant, is sufficient.
Objection 5.2.5. Actually, we all have a moral obligation to love our neighbors as we love
ourselves because God, the morally perfect being who created us and rules the universe,
commands us to do so.
Reply:
If God existed, he wouldnt create anything like our universe, or like us.
But leaving that aside, even assuming such being exists, there is still no good reason to believe that he
commanded us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Christians might claim so, and on that basis, that we have a moral obligation though the claim that we
would have an obligation in that case is disputable too, but lets let that pass.
But thats precisely what Im arguing against, on the basis of a moral assessment of the scenario.

Generally, if a religion makes a moral claim, we may properly assess the claim in question by our
intuitive sense of right and wrong, and on that basis, argue against the religion in question, as I have
argued in the first section.
It would be an improper way of assessing the evidence or rather, a refusal to assess much of it to
just refuse to use our own sense of right and wrong to assess the claims of Christianity on the basis that
if Christianity is true, then any conflict between it and our assessments means our assessments are
wrong. That kind of reasoning would essentially shield Christianity for being assessed on the basis on
its moral claims, and that would not be a rational way of assessing whether Christianity is true.
5.3. Some family values.
Lets take a look at some of Jesuss commands and moral claims or implications regarding families.
OEB[1]
Luke 14
26 If any one comes to me and does not hate their father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brothers, and sisters, yes and even their life, he can be no disciple of
mine.
27 Whoever does not carry their own cross, and walk in my steps, can be no disciple
of mine.
28 Why, which of you, when you want to build a tower, does not first sit down and
reckon the cost, to see if you have enough to complete it?
29 Otherwise, if you have laid the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone
who sees it will laugh at you,
30 and say Here is a person who began to build and was not able to finish!
31 Or what king, when he is setting out to fight another king, does not first sit down
and consider if with ten thousand men he is able to meet one who is coming against
him with twenty thousand?
32 And if he cannot, then, while the other is still at a distance, he sends envoys and
asks for terms of peace.
33 And so with everyone of you who does not bid farewell to all you have you
cannot be a disciple of mine.

GWEB:
Luke 14
14:26 "If anyone comes to me, and doesn't hate his own father, mother, wife,
children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can't be my disciple.
14:27 Whoever doesn't bear his own cross, and come after me, can't be my disciple.
14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, doesn't first sit down and count the
cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? 14:29 Or perhaps, when he has laid a
foundation, and is not able to finish, everyone who sees begins to mock him, 14:30
saying, 'This man began to build, and wasn't able to finish.' 14:31 Or what king, as he
goes to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and consider whether he
is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?
14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an envoy, and asks for
conditions of peace. 14:33 So therefore whoever of you who doesn't renounce all that
he has, he can't be my disciple.
So, Jesus was telling them to abandon and hate or disregard their families: their parents, children,
siblings, and so on. He even told them to hate themselves but not to hate him, of course.
We may consider some options:
i. If Jesus is Yahwehs second person, then this particular immoral action pales in comparison
with the previously described atrocities committed by Yahweh, so its a drop in an ocean of
immorality even if we leave Hell aside.
ii. If Jesus is not Yahwehs second person, but Jesus knew that Yahweh existed and Jesus was
either Yahwehs ally or at least a high-level henchman, then what Jesus did in this particular case
was also immoral, and we can add that to other immoral actions he committed in league with
Yahweh, as described in the Gospels.
Of course, those immoral actions pale in comparison with the atrocities directly committed or
commanded by Yahweh - as described in the Old Testament - but still, if Jesus had serious power
and was directly involved as a key player in Yahweh's evil plot as the Gospels seem to indicate
-, his willing involvement in Yahweh's evil plot would plausibly make him no better than
henchmen working for people like Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.

In any event, even if Jesus's participation didn't involve similarly evil deeds, and even if Jesus
was less evil than all of those people, his willing participation as a powerful, high-level
henchman or an ally of Yahwehs is enough to make him a bad person at the very least.
In particular, of course Jesus was not morally perfect.
iii. If Jesus is not Yahwehs second person but Jesus knew that Yahweh existed and Jesus was
Yahwehs servant or follower, then what Jesus did in this particular case was also immoral, and
we can add that to other immoral actions he committed in the service of Yahweh. Of course, those
immoral actions pale in comparison with the atrocities directly committed or commanded by
Yahweh, as described in the Old Testament.
But in any case, Jesus was not morally perfect, and given what he did in the case under
consideration - i. e. telling people to abandon their families and follow him and the monster
Yahweh-, he was not a good person. In fact, under this scenario (i .e., iii), Jesuss behavior is
similar to that of a cult leader who tells people to abandon their families and follow him and who
actually believes himself to be chosen, connected to some creator, etc., with the difference that
Jesus was actually following a real moral monster whose existence Jesus actually knew about even though he failed to realize that Yahweh was a moral monster.
iv. If Jesus was a fully human preacher with no special connection to any being with superhuman
powers which is actually the case, of course, but leaving that aside for the sake of the argument
and considering options instead -, this action indicates that he was far from being a good role
model. Rather, he seems to have been a cult leader, spreading his false religion and telling people
to hate or disregard and abandon their families. Given that, the fact that Jesus also did good
things doesnt make him a great moral teacher even though even his cult leader immorality isnt
nearly as immoral as the atrocities commanded and/or committed by Yahweh in the Old
Testament.
v. If Jesus was some other kind of entity, he lied or probably was even confused about what he
was. In any case, he was neither morally perfect, nor a good moral teacher.
Of course, again that does not mean that all of Jesuss teachings or public actions were immoral.
For instance, under the (correct) assumption that he was a fully human preacher with no connection to
any being of superhuman powers, preventing the stoning of a woman for adultery was morally good,

assuming he actually did that which I see no good reason to believe, but leaving that aside.
On the other hand, demanding that people leave their families to follow him, making false promises of
an afterlife for those who follow him in that fashion, etc., were all immoral actions on Jesuss part.
Objection 5.3.1. It would have been immoral for a human preacher who isnt also the same entity
as the creator to say what Jesus said to the disciples, but Yahweh is a trinity, and Jesus is the
second person, so he has sovereignty.
Reply:
The previous sections show that Yahweh is a very evil being, and also that the sovereignty objection
fails.
Objection 5.3.2. Those are bad translations. Jesus did not mean to say that his disciples had to
hate or even disregard their families, but only that their families should take second place to their
dedication to Jesus.
Reply:
That is not what the Bible says, but even if that is the case, that was still immoral. So, he wasnt exactly
a good role model.
Moreover, generally he promoted false moral beliefs, like the belief that leaving their families like that
was morally good in addition, of course, to false moral beliefs already common in his social
environment, like the belief that Yahweh was morally good.
So, based on that, one should reckon that Jesus was not a great moral teacher, let alone morally perfect.
Objection 5.3.3. Those passages are false. Jesus did not say that.
Reply:
Someone making that claim ought to explain how he goes about ascertaining why he thinks so, and
why he thinks other passages are accurate.
Objection 5.3.4. Your assessment of Jesuss character is biased because youre not considering the
passages in which Jesus does good things.
Reply:
Actually, I do grant that there are several passages in which Jesus does good things, and assess that
even so, overall he wasnt a great moral teacher, let alone morally perfect, for the reasons Ive been
explaining. But there are even more reasons, as I will explain below.

5.4. The Sermon on the Mount.

The Sermon on the Mount is contained in the Gospel of Matthew, and is accepted by all mainstream
versions of Christianity, and in fact all versions of Christianity I'm familiar with. In this subsection, I
will address some of Jesus's commands, moral claims or moral implications contained in the Sermon,
and show some of his errors and wrongful behavior.
5.4.1. Jesus and Old Testament Law.
OEB[1]
Matthew 5:
[17] Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law or the prophets; I have
not come to do away with them, but to complete them. [18] For I tell you, until the
heavens and the earth disappear, not even the smallest letter, nor one stroke of a letter,
will disappear from the Law until all is done. [19] Whoever, therefore, breaks one of
these commandments, even the least of them, and teaches others to do so, will be the
least esteemed in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps them, and teaches others
to do so, will be esteemed great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] Indeed I tell you that,
unless you obey God's commands better than of the teachers of the Law, and
Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
GWEB:
Matthew 5:
5:17 "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to
destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away
from the law, until all things are accomplished. 5:19 Whoever, therefore, shall break
one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in
the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in
the Kingdom of Heaven. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds
that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of
Heaven.
As I argued earlier, Jesus did endorse Old Testament Law as coming from Yahweh, even if he intended

to change parts of it. But Old Testament Law is not the focus of this section, so I will just mention the
matter and link to my earlier comments on the issue, and then focus on other shortcomings of Jesus's
teachings in the Sermon.
5.4.2. Jesus accuses some people of adultery.
In the following passage, Jesus makes false accusations of adultery against innocent people, and
promotes false moral beliefs about what those people deserve:
OEB[1]
Matthew 5:
[27] You have heard that it was said You must not commit adultery. [28] But I
say to you that anyone who looks at a woman and desires her has already committed
adultery with her in his heart. [29] If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and
throw it away. It would be best for you to lose one part of your body, and not to have
the whole of it thrown into Gehenna. [30] And, if your right hand causes you to sin,
cut it off and throw it away. It would be best for you to lose one part of your body,
and not to have the whole of it go down to Gehenna.
GWEB:
Matthew 5:
5:27 "You have heard that it was said, * 'You shall not commit adultery;'* 5:28 but I
tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery
with her already in his heart. 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out
and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your
members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. 5:30 If
your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you. For it is
more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole
body to be cast into Gehenna.
Granted, there are situations in which it's immoral to look at a woman with desire.
However, it is not the case that it's always immoral to do so, even if the person looking at her is not
married to her, and regardless of whether the person looking at her is Jewish. But in the passage quoted
above, Jesus is incorrectly implying that the behavior is immoral.

Moreover, Jesus implied that people who do look at a woman with desire are at risk of being cast into
Gehenna in other words, Hell. But if Yahweh cast people into Gehenna for looking at a woman with
desire, he is morally evil. Yet, Jesus believed that Yahweh was morally good.
Objection 5.4.2.1. Jesus was talking about Gehenna figuratively.
Reply:
1. The text does not seem to indicate so, and in any event, he should have expected his interlocutors to
interpret that literally given their beliefs. So, Jesus was promoting the false moral belief that a person
may deserve to be cast into Hell for looking at a woman with desire, either deliberately or out of
negligence.
2. In any event, even if one were to leave Gehenna out of it just for the sake of the argument, it would
remain the case that Jesus's accusation of immorality is false. It's not always immoral to look at a
woman with desire, even if the person looking at her is not her husband nor her wife, though it's
obvious Jesus didn't consider that option.
Objection 5.4.2.2. Jesus was not talking about all instances of looking at a woman with desire. He
was talking about men staring in a predatory fashion.
Reply:
There is nothing in the text indicating that.
Objection 5.4.2.3. Jesus was only talking about the Jewish society of his time.
Reply:
Even in Jesus's time, perhaps say a woman and a man were in a relationship, but her father did not
approve, and they couldn't get married. But it wasn't immoral for him to look at her with desire. It's just
one example, but the point is that Jesus's implications remain false even if limited to the Jewish society
of his time.
5.4.3. Jesus accuses some more people of adultery.
In the previous subsection, I addressed some of Jesus's false claims about adultery. Let's take a look at
more of those claims:
OEB[1]
Matthew 5:
[31] It was also said Let anyone who divorces his wife serve her with a notice of

separation. [32] But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the
ground of some serious sexual sin, leads to her committing adultery; while anyone
who marries her after her divorce is guilty of adultery.
GWEB:
Matthew 5:
5:31 "It was also said, 'Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorce,' 5:32 but I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of
sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put
away commits adultery.
When Jesus says It was also said, he's making a reference to Deuteronomy:
GWEB:
Deuteronomy 24:
1 When a man takes a wife and marries her, then it shall be, if she finds no favor in
his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a
certificate of divorce, and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 When
she has departed out of his house, she may go and be another mans wife. 3 If the
latter husband hates her, and write her a certificate of divorce, and puts it in her hand,
and sends her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his
wife; 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife,
after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh.
So, in this passage, Jesus was either amending those laws, or claiming that it would be immoral for a
man to act in accordance to those laws, divorcing his wife. But moreover, Jesus claimed that if a man
divorced his wife and she remarried, then both she and her new husband were guilty of adultery, and
both were behaving immorally.
Now, the legal disposition in the Old Testament was unjust, since it did not allow a woman to similarly
divorce her husband. But I already addressed some of the heinous marriage dispositions in the Old
Testament, so let's focus on Jesus's claim about the woman who remarries and her new husband, and
let's consider two potential situations:
1. Consensual remarriage:

In this case, a woman who is divorced because her husband chose to divorce her, choses to marry
another man, who chooses also to marry her. We may assume the new husband is single since Jesus
didn't exclude single men from his moral judgment -, and it should be clear that neither the woman nor
her new husband are behaving immorally just because they get married and/or have consensual sex.
Yet, Jesus falsely implies that they are behaving immorally.
In fact, Jesus promotes the false moral belief that a woman who was divorced by her husband behaves
immorally if she ever marries again, unless he dies first.
Moreover, it is clear in this context that any sexual relationship with anyone other than the man who
divorced her would be regarded as adultery on her part by Jesus's standards, regardless of whether she
has sex with someone she's not married to, or with someone she married later.
So, according to the moral views promoted by Jesus, a woman divorced by her husband either gives up
on having a sexual life, or incurs immorality, except perhaps if she reconciles with the man who
divorced her. Based on that, one should realize that Jesus had false moral beliefs, and immorally
promoted those false moral beliefs, condemning people who did nothing wrong. A woman does nothing
wrong just by starting a new relationship with another man, after her husband divorced her.
While this particular false moral teaching of Jesus is much less evil than many other biblical teachings,
it has done considerable damage up to the present time, to a large extent via the Catholic Church, which
seems bent on promoting the same false moral beliefs Jesus was promoting on the matter.
2. Forced remarriage:
I don't think Jesus is talking about forced remarriage in this context, but just in case someone wonders
about that, clearly, if the marriage is forced, the new husband's fault is rape and slavery much worse
than adultery -, and she is not at fault at all. So, in the cases of forced marriages, Jesus's moral claims
would be false as well if the claims were about those cases, that is. They aren't, but they're still false,
as pointed out in 1. above.
Objection 5.4.3.1. Jesus was talking about the Jewish society of that time, and in that social
context, it would have been immoral for a woman divorced by her husband to remarry unless he
died first, and it would have been immoral for anyone else to marry her for as long as the former
husband lived. Moreover, as long as he lived, it would have been immoral for her to have any sex
with anyone else.

Reply:
That's not true, even in that society. If a husband decided to divorce her wife, it is not the case that she
had a moral obligation not to have sex ever again unless he died first, or they reconciled. Similarly, it is
not the case that she had a moral obligation not to remarry.
I invite readers to use their own moral sense to assess the matter, rather than the claims of Christianity.
Objection 5.4.3.2. Jesus was merely trying to protect women from being abandoned by their
husbands. He didn't mean to imply that a woman rejected by her husband behaved immorally if
she remarried while her husband or former husband was still alive-, nor did he mean to imply
that a man who married a divorced woman behaved immorally.
Reply:
While Jesus may have been trying, among other things, to protect some women, he clearly implied that
a woman who remarries in those conditions commits adultery, and also clearly claimed that a man who
marries her commits adultery as well. It's also implicit in this context that their behavior is immoral,
according to Jesus. He was mistaken.
5.4.4. Jesus orders some people to turn the other cheek.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commands that some people namely, the people the command is
meant for - refrain from resisting those who wrong them. Furthermore, he claims or implies that they
have a moral obligation not to resist.
OEB[1]
Matthew 5:
[38] You have heard that it was said An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
[39] But I say to you that you must not resist those who wrong you; but, if anyone
strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to them also. [40] If someone sues you
for your shirt, let them have your cloak as well. [41] If you are forced to carry a
soldier's pack for one mile, carry it two. [42] Give to anyone who asks and, if
someone wants to borrow from you, do not turn them away.
GWEB:
Matthew 5:
5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

5:39 But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right
cheek, turn to him the other also. 5:40 If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let
him have your cloak also. 5:41 Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him
two. 5:42 Give to him who asks you, and don't turn away him who desires to borrow
from you.
However, Jesus's moral implications in the passage above, are not true.
In nearly all cases, humans do not have a moral obligation not to resist attackers. Examples abound, but
for example, if a person attempts to rob or beat another person, the latter does not behave immorally is
she resists, at least in nearly all cases some expected consequences might be the bases for some
exceptions, but at least nearly always there is no moral fault in resisting.
That's perhaps even more clear if possible if a person attempts to kidnap, rape or kill another
person.
So, again, one should conclude Jesus made false moral claims or implications, and promoted false
moral beliefs. That's without even bringing up cases in which people have a moral obligation to resist.
Objection 5.4.4.1. Jesus did not actually command some people not to resist, nor did he claim or
imply that they had a moral obligation not to resist. He was only talking about what is morally
better, but not required. Turning the other cheek is morally praiseworthy, but it's generally not
immoral to resist.
Reply:
1. That interpretation is extremely implausible. In the text, Jesus is clearly giving commands, telling
people how they ought to behave.
2. Actually, it's not the case that generally, not resisting is morally praiseworthy. In fact, generally, the
victim who allows the perpetrator to do as he wants is not just because of that i. e., all other things
equal behaving in a morally better way than the victim who resists successfully or not.
So, even under this extremely improbable interpretation of the text, it turns out that Jesus promotes
false moral beliefs.
Objection 5.4.4.2. In this context, Jesus was not talking about serious wrongdoings, like
attempted robbery, murder, rape or kidnapping, but lesser ones, like slapping someone.
Reply:

1. Actually, Jesus gives a general command not to resist those who wrong one, so this objection posits a
very improbable interpretation.
2. Even in those cases of lesser offenses, there is generally no moral obligation not to resist, nor is it
generally morally praiseworthy not to resist.
Objection 5.4.4.3. In this context, Jesus was not talking about serious wrongdoings, like
attempted robbery, murder, rape or kidnapping, but lesser ones, like slapping someone.
Moreover, he was talking only about the Jewish people. The command was not for anyone else.
Reply:
The moral belief he promotes in this context would still be false, and for the same reasons, applied to
the Jewish people.
Objection 5.4.4.4. In this context, Jesus was not talking about serious wrongdoings, like
attempted robbery, murder, rape or kidnapping, but lesser ones, like slapping someone.
Moreover, he was talking only about the Jewish people of his time. The command was not for
anyone else.
Reply:
That's improbable, but even then, the moral belief he promotes in this context would still be false, and
for the same reasons, applied to the Jewish people of his time.
5.4.5. Jesus commands that some people love their enemies.
After commanding that some people turn the other cheek, Jesus goes on to tell them to love those who
hate them:
OEB[1]
Matthew 5:
[43] You have heard that it was said You must love your neighbor and hate your
enemy. [44] But what I tell you is this: love your enemies, and pray for those who
persecute you, [45] so that you may become children of your Father who is in heaven;
for he causes his sun to rise on bad and good alike, and sends rain on the righteous
and on the unrighteous. [46] For, if you love only those who love you, what reward
will you have? Even the tax-gatherers do this! [47] And, if you only welcome your
brothers and sisters, what are you doing more than others? Even the Gentiles do this!
[48] You, then, must become perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

GWEB:
Matthew 5:
5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor,* and hate your
enemy.*' 5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good
to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, 5:45
that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to
rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. 5:46 For if you
love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do
the same? 5:47 If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others?
Don't even the tax collectors do the same? 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as
your Father in heaven is perfect.
First, in the passages quoted above Jesus implies that at least - the Jewish people had a moral
obligation to love their enemies. But that's not true.
Second, when he intends to argue in support of that claim and says For if you love those who love
you, what reward do you have?, he omits another alternative, namely loving those who don't hate one,
even if they don't love one, either. But let's leave that aside.
Third, when he says (in the OEB version) Don't even the Gentiles do the same? he is implying that
Gentiles i. e., not Jews are generally morally inferior to Jews, and generally bad people. If he
believed that, he was mistaken about that. But either way maybe he lied -, he promoted that false
moral beliefs again, as long as the translation is correct.
Granted, the MWEB says tax collectors in both cases, but most translations say either Gentiles or
pagans.
Still, even granting for the sake of the argument that he means tax collectors - one wonders why so
many translations got it so wrong -, and that collecting taxes in that context involved some pretty evil
behavior worse than worshiping Yahweh -, the problem remains that people do not have a general
moral obligation to love those who hated, persecuted or otherwise wronged them.
Purely for example, if the victim of a serious crime does not love the perpetrator, generally she is not
behaving immorally because of that. Nor is the victim who loves the perpetrator behaving in a morally
better way than the victim who does not love the perpetrator, all other things equal.

The same holds if one limits the assessment to Jewish victims, or even to Jewish victims of the time of
Jesus, so even if Jesus's command was only meant for the Jewish people, or even just for the Jewish
people of his time, in the passages quoted above he is promoting false moral beliefs.
Incidentally, in that context, Jesus is talking about their enemies, persecution, etc., so it's even more
apparent that he's not talking about minor offenses only.
5.4.6. Jesus, Yahweh and forgiveness.
In the Sermon, Jesus tells people that if they forgive the offenses of others, then Yahweh will forgive
their offenses, but if they do not forgive the offenses of others, then Yahweh will not forgive their
offenses, either.
OEB[1]
Matthew 6:
[14] For, if you forgive others their offenses, your heavenly Father will forgive you
also; [15] but, if you do not forgive others their offenses, not even your Father will
forgive your offenses.
GWEB:
Matthew 6:
6:14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive
you. 6:15 But if you don't forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses.
In this context, Jesus is implying that it's immoral not to forgive other people's offenses. While in some
situations a person does have a moral obligation to forgive some offenses, in some other situations, that
is surely not the case.
For example, the surviving victims of some of the heinous crimes of, say, Boko Haram, ISIS, or
Los Zetas victims of torture, slavery, rape, etc. - have no moral obligation to forgive those people.
They do not incur immoral behavior if they do not forgive them.
By promoting the belief that it's always immoral not to forgive, Jesus smears the reputation of the
victims, by implying that they behave immorally if they do not forgive even if he fails to realize that.
Objection 5.4.6.1. In this context, Jesus was not talking about serious wrongdoings, but lesser
ones, like slapping someone.

Reply:
That is very improbable. Jesus is saying this after talking earlier in the Sermon about serious
wrongdoings, commanding people to love their enemies, and so on. In that context, he seems to be
talking about any wrongdoings, including serious ones.
Objection 5.4.6.2. Jesus did not mean to imply that it is immoral not to forgive, but that it is
morally praiseworthy to forgive, and not praiseworthy not to do so.
Reply:
1. That is very improbable, given the threat of retribution from Yahweh.
2. Even if he meant that, it's still false. It's not the case that the victims of heinous crimes who forgive
the perpetrators are, all other things equal, behaving in a morally better way than those victims who do
not forgive them.
Objection 5.4.6.2. In this passage, Jesus didn't mean to imply that it is immoral not to forgive
people who are not sorry for their actions or do not request forgiveness, but only that it is
immoral not to forgive those who are sorry and request forgiveness.
Reply:
Even if that's what the passage means which the text does not indicate -, Jesus's moral implication
remains false.
Objection 5.4.6.3. In this passage, Jesus was not making any claims or implications about the
morality of not forgiving. He was merely promoting being generally more disposed towards
forgiveness.
Reply:
While he may have wanted to promote that, it should be apparent from the text that he was making
such claims or implications, as I pointed out earlier in this subsection.
5.4.7. Jesus commands that some people refrain from judging others.
In the Sermon, Jesus condemns hypocrisy which is a good point , but goes much further than that,
making false moral claims or implications. Let's see:
OEB[1]
Matthew 7:
[1] Do not judge and you will not be judged. [2] For, just as you judge others, you

will yourselves be judged, and the standard that you use will be used for you. [3]
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your friend's eye, while you pay no
attention at all to the plank of wood in yours? [4] How will you say to your friend
Let me take out the speck from your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your
own? [5] Hypocrite! Take out the plank from your own eye first, and then you will
see clearly how to take out the speck from your friend's.
GWEB:
Matthew 7:
7:1 "Don't judge, so that you won't be judged. 7:2 For with whatever judgment you
judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be
measured to you. 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't
consider the beam that is in your own eye? 7:4 Or how will you tell your brother, 'Let
me remove the speck from your eye;' and behold, the beam is in your own eye? 7:5
You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see
clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
I reckon that Himmler was a morally evil person. So was Pol Pot. So is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. So is
Abubakar Shekau. By making those true, warranted moral assessments, I just morally judged other
people, but I didn't behave immorally by doing so. The fact that I'm in no way morally perfect does not
make it immoral for me to judge them. Nor would it be immoral for me to judge them without also
pointing out that I'm not morally perfect.
Yet, in the passages quoted above, Jesus is implying that judging others is immoral. By making that
implication in that context, he's promoting false moral beliefs, smearing some people who didn't do
anything wrong namely, those who judge others in those cases in which it's not immoral to judge
others.
The conclusion does not change if we restrict Jesus's statements to the Jewish people, or even to the
Jewish people of his time.
Moreover, there is another serious problem with Jesus's statements, namely the fact that he threatens
that those who judge others will be judged by the same standards.
However, judging a person by the same standards by which he or she judges others is improper if his

standards themselves are improper.

For example, if Jack morally condemns people just for having sex with their partners without being
married, it would still be improper to morally condemn Jack just for having sex with his partner
without being married. It would be proper generally - to morally condemn him for condemning
people just for having sex with their partners without being married, and for his hypocrisy, but not just
for having sex with his partner without being married.
Furthermore, there is the problem of those who judge others by wrong, even abhorrent standards, but
who live up to those abhorrent standards. For example, if a fanatic, truly convinced member of ISIS
actually lives up to the abhorrent false moral beliefs he promotes and by which he condemns other
people, it would still be improper to judge him by those despicable standards he is truly committed to.
Even if most member of ISIS are not like that, at least some probably are else, one may just pick
some other group, extant or not.
So, in short, Jesus's moral implications are mistaken again.
Objection 5.4.7.1. Jesus only meant for his judgment to apply to the people in the Jewish
community of his time. So, even if some members of ISIS live up to their despicable standards,
that is not a problem for Jesus's judgment.
Reply:
1. ISIS was just an example. One may as well consider a Jew of the time of Jesus who would condemn
others on the basis of some of the also despicable moral standards of the Old Testament, and who lived
up to the particular standards by which he judged others.
2. Regardless of whether someone lives up to the bad standards they apply, it's improper to judge them
by bad standards. It's either an epistemic error, or a deliberate unwarranted moral judgment, based on
the wrong standards.
Objection 5.4.7.2. Jesus didn't mean that they would be judged by their own standards only. They
can be judged by their own standards, and also by the right ones.
Reply:
That's a very improbable interpretation given context, but in any event, that would still be improper.
Objection 5.4.7.3. Jesus didn't mean that they would be judged by their own standards by
Yahweh, or by anyone making proper judgments. He just meant that they would be so judged

during their lives, by someone whoever that someone might be.

Reply:
If so, then Jesus clearly was mistaken, or lying, since there are people who get away with wrongly
judging others.
Objection 5.4.7.4. Jesus was not implying what you say he was implying. Context indicates he
was condemning hypocrisy, and nothing more.
Reply:
While it's plausible that he was mostly concerned with condemning hypocrisy, he clearly went the
wrong way about that, condemning not only hypocrisy but proper behavior, as I've been explaining.
Objection 5.4.7.5. Jesus meant that people shouldn't pass judgment without recognizing their
own faults.
Reply:
That's not what the text says or suggests.
Objection 5.4.7.6. Jesus meant that people shouldn't pass judgment in an arrogant manner.
Reply:
That's not what the text says or suggests, either.
5.4.8. Jesus and the Golden Rule.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus endorses the Golden Rule and makes a number of other claims in
that context:
OEB[1]
Matthew 7:
[12] Do to others whatever you would wish them to do to you; for that is the teaching
of both the Law and the prophets.
GWEB:
Matthew 7:
7:12 Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them;
for this is the law and the prophets.
There is a similar passage in the Gospel of Luke.
Telling people to behave in that manner, in that context, contains the implicit moral claim:

GR: The people for whom the command was meant, have a moral obligation to do to others as
they wish others do to them.
Two questions arise:
1. Who is the command meant for?
2. Who are the others?
Most versions of Christianity accept that the rule is at least meant for all mentally competent adult
humans are included in both categories. Let's say that that is so, and let's consider the following
scenarios:
Scenario GR1:
Pierre is a prison guard in France. He does his job, working to keep inmates in prison. One of the
inmates is Jean, who is in prison for bank robbery. Pierre does his job of his own free will. But he
does not wish that others put him in prison, or hold him there.
Scenario GR2:
Rashid is a member of the Taliban, who enforce their rules in the territory they control. In
particular, Rashid flogged Anwar for failing to grow a beard, cut off Adbul's hands just for nonviolent theft, and flogged Soraya for not wearing a burka. Rashid does his job of his own free
will. But he wouldn't want others to flog him, or to cut off his hands.
Pierre does not behave immorally just for helping keep Jean in prison, even though Pierre does not
wish to be put in prison, or to be held in prison. On the other hand, Rashid did behave immorally for
flogging Anwar for failing to grow a beard, and also for cutting off Abdul's hands for non-violent theft,
and also for flogging Soraya for not wearing a burqa.
However, GR seems to imply that Pierre behaves immorally. So, GR is false.
Objection 5.4.9.1. GR does not imply that Pierre behaves immorally. Pierre is treating Jean as he
wishes others to treat him, since he wants that everyone in France be subject to French law. In
particular, he wants that anyone be imprisoned if they commit bank robbery. While he had no
moral obligation to help others in prison before he got his job as a prison guard, after he did, he
had no moral obligation not to become a prison guard, either.
And since he got the job, he has a moral obligation to do as he promised, and help keep Jean and
others in prison since he wishes others to keep their promises to him as well.

Reply:
Alright then, but let's say Rashid wants that everyone in Afghanistan or some regions of Afghanistan
and Pakistan; the place is not relevant be subject to Taliban law. In particular, he wants that any man
be flogged if they fail to grow a beard, any woman be flogged if she fails to wear a burqa.
Going by the same standards, it seems it follows from GR that after Rashid took his job, he has a moral
obligation to flog men for not growing beards, and women for not wearing burqas. But it's not the case
that he has such moral obligations. So, GR is false.
Objection 5.4.9.2. GR does not imply that Pierre behaves immorally. Pierre is treating Jean as he
wishes others to treat him, since he wants that everyone in France be subject to French law. In
particular, he wants that anyone be imprisoned if they commit bank robbery. While he had no
moral obligation to help others in prison before he got his job as a prison guard, after he did, he
had no moral obligation not to become a prison guard, either.
And since he got the job, he has a moral obligation to do as he promised, and help keep Jean and
others in prison since he wishes others to keep their promises to him as well.
The case of Rashid is different, because French criminal law applies regardless of sex or gender,
whereas Taliban law applies differently to men and women.
Reply:
Let's then consider a scenario in which, say, the punishment for non-violent theft is to be hanged to
death. Let's further add that criminal law applies equally to men and women. It remains the case that
the willing enforcer does not have a moral obligation to hang people to death for non-violent theft. So,
GR is false.
Objection 5.4.9.3. GR does not imply that Pierre behaves immorally. Pierre is treating Jean as he
wishes others to treat him, since he wants that everyone in France be subject to French law. In
particular, he wants that anyone be imprisoned if they commit bank robbery. While he had no
moral obligation to help others in prison before he got his job as a prison guard, after he did, he
had no moral obligation not to become a prison guard, either.
And since he got the job, he has a moral obligation to do as he promised, and help keep Jean and
others in prison since he wishes others to keep their promises to him as well.
The case of Rashid is different, because Rashid does not wish that Taliban law be applied to

everyone. He wishes that Sharia law be applied. But he is mistaken about the interpretation of
Sharia law.
Reply:
Let's then consider a scenario in which, say, the punishment for non-violent theft is to be hanged to
death. Let's say that there is no misinterpretation of any laws. It remains the case that the willing
enforcer does not have a moral obligation to hang people to death for non-violent theft. So, GR is false.
Objection 5.4.9.4. Every adult, mentally competent human wishes that others treat them in
accordance to their moral obligations. So, GR only implies that every adult, competent human
being has a moral obligation to behave according to her moral obligations, which is obviously
true.
Reply:
1. We may stipulate that Jean is adult and competent, and wishes that Pierre broke his moral
obligations, accepted his bribe and allowed him to escape. That is not such a far-fetched scenario.
There are plenty of times when people wish that others break their moral obligations when doing
business with them only they usually want that they break their moral obligations in a way that only
harms third parties, of course.
2. In fact, even if one were to rewrite the objection to say that every adult, competent human being
wishes that others treat them in accordance to their moral obligations towards them or something like
that -, there are counterexamples.
3. Regardless, let's say for the sake for the argument that the objection is somehow modified in a way
that yields the conclusion that every adult, competent human being has a moral obligation to behave
according to her moral obligations.
It would be a mistaken interpretation of the text to conclude that that's all GR entails. In fact, GR is
supposed to provide a method for ascertaining moral obligations, not just to state the transparent
tautology that every adult, competent human being has a moral obligation to behave according to her
moral obligations, which is obviously true.
Objection 5.4.9.5. Jesus only meant that the Golden Rule was applicable to the Jewish people and
the ancient Israelites, and not to adult, competent humans from other social groups.
Reply:

Even when limited in that way, GR is false. For example, let's say Saul was an ancient Israelite who
sincerely supported the application of Mosaic Law, and was actually an enforcer. It remains the case
that he had no moral obligation to engage in the atrocities commanded in that law.
Objection 5.4.9.6. Jesus only meant that the Golden Rule was applicable to those Jews who
wished that Yahweh's Law be applied properly. Any injustice included in Mosaic Law is not from
Yahweh, and so not a proper application.
Reply:
There is no basis in the text to believe Jesus meant that. If he meant to say that, he was seriously
negligent.
Objection 5.4.9.7. Jesus only meant that one should love everyone even one's enemies as one
loves oneself.
Reply:
There seems to be no good reason to think so, but if he meant that, then he was still mistaken, as I
pointed out in an earlier subsection.
6. Hell.
Based on the previous sections, I would assess that Yahweh is a moral monster. However, if the most
common interpretations of the New Testament are correct in positing that Hell exists and is infinite, I
would say that hes even far more evil than what any of the actions described in the Old Testament
reveal.
6.1. Infinite Hell vs. finite Hell or no Hell.
While there is disagreement about whether Hell is finite or infinite, the following passage seems to
imply its the latter.
OEB[1]
Psalm 81: 15 Those who hate the Lord would cringe before him in everlasting terror.
GWEB:
Psalm 81: 15 The haters of Yahweh would cringe before him, and their punishment
would last forever.
In addition to that passage, some Christian denominations including the largest one by far, namely the
Roman Catholic Church -, hold that the Book of Judith is part of the Bible.

In that case, there is also the following passage:

GWEB:
Judith 16:17
Woe to the nations that rise up against my race: The Lord Almighty will take
vengeance of them in the day of judgement, To put fire and worms in their flesh; And
they shall weep and feel their pain for ever.
The New American Bible an English translation of the Bible approved by the Roman Catholic
Church also states that their weeping and suffering will last forever. Moreover, the Catechism of the
Catholic Church also claims that Hell is forever [16]. Its true that the Catholic Church also seems to
claim that Hell is freely chosen by those in Hell, but that claim is untenable on the basis of other
Catholic tenets, as I argue below. Also, its true that the Catholic Church does not claim that Hell is a
place of fire, but the fact remains that it holds its infinite, which is the point Im getting at in this part
of the essay.
The second largest Christian denomination by number of adherents the Eastern Orthodox Church
also accepts the Book of Judith even if not with the same status as other books[17] -, which holds that
Hell is eternal. [18]
That said, a number of other versions of Christianity claim that Hell has a finite duration, and others
even deny that there is Hell at all.
The arguments in the rest of this section only apply to versions of Christianity that hold that Hell is
infinite or, alternatively, that hold that parts of the Bible that entail that Hell is infinite are true. The rest
of the versions of Christianity are not affected by the following arguments in this section, but the
previous ones still apply, as do those I will make later. [19]
6.2. Hell as a place of torment vs. Hell as some state of mind or state of being.
For most of the history of Christianity, Hell has been seen by most Christians as a place of punishment,
where the damned endure a number of torments.
However, nowadays there are competing views, including those that characterize Hell as a state of
mind, or a state of being, or something along those lines.
Now, according to most versions of Christianity, the dead will eventually resurrect, so they will have
bodies. So, they will have to be put somewhere, and if the damned will be separated from the blessed

i. e., they wont be in the same place -, then whether the suffering is caused by fire or by some other
condition, its difficult to see how that would not be a place of eternal torment. Maybe someone might
use the word Hell to denote not the place but the mental state, etc., but terminology aside, there would
be a place of eternal torment.
In any case, and while a lot could be said about those issues, its not important to the moral case Im
making: regardless of whether the word Hell is used to denote a place where the damned will go, or
some state of mind or being of those people, and even regardless of whether there is such a place, the
important point here is that people in Hell will endure eternal suffering, without possibility of escape
they dont even have the choice to be annihilated to end their torment.
Once its clear that such eternal torment is imposed by Yahweh, the immorality of his actions should be
apparent.
6.3. Hell as imposed by Yahweh vs. Hell as chosen by the damned.
While the traditional view of Hell, for most of the history of Christianity, was that Hell was a
punishment imposed by Yahweh, nowadays there are many Christians who interpret the matter
differently, and claim that even though Hell is a form of infinite suffering, its freely chosen by the
damned.
However, that alternative view is clearly untenable, based on some other beliefs held by those
Christians: if Yahweh is the creator of every other being, and there is infinite Hell in any of its
variants, place or not -, then infinite Hell is imposed by Yahweh on the damned.
On that note, humans would not choose to suffer for eternity not even very bad people would make
such choice -, unless, perhaps, theyre seriously mentally ill, or are sacrificing themselves to save
others, but both situations would arguably not be cases of free choices, and in any event, those are not
the situations under consideration.
So, given the above, it is apparent that Hell is generally not chosen by the damned, but imposed on
them by Yahweh. Moreover, and while the previous considerations suffice, one can also point out that
the damned are not allowed to leave or cease to exist after a finite time in Hell, even though Yahweh
who created the rule according to which they end up in Hell could easily let them go or destroy them,
if he accepted.
Objection 6.3.1. The people in Hell freely choose to suffer for eternity by means of freely choosing

to sin [alternatives: by rejecting the Gospel, or generally by meeting the conditions for going to Hell in
each version of Christianity that posits infinite Hell], like criminals put themselves in prison or
death row by freely choosing to commit crimes.
Reply:
a. Lets consider the following scenario:
Alice believes Hell does not exist.
Even if she was negligent and thats why she believes Hell does not exist in reality, that is
normally not the case, though in some cases someone might negligently come to have the true
belief that Hell does not exist, but leaving that aside the fact remains that she believes Hell does
not exist.
So, when she meets the conditions to avoid Hell, she never expected that the consequences of her
meeting such conditions would be to go to Hell.
For instance, lets say Alice read the Gospel and was told by some Christians that if she did not
believe it was all true, and/or did not trust Jesus as her lord and savior, she would go to Hell.
Some other Christians told her that there were some other conditions she had to meet in order to
avoid Hell. And then, some Muslims told her there were some other conditions, and her present
choices would result in her going to Hell. In some cases, the conditions were mutually
incompatible.
Now, Alice very reasonably, but leaving that aside did not believe any of the claims.
In fact, she came to the conclusion that the rules in question namely, rules imposed by an
immensely powerful creator that establish that meeting certain criteria would result in her
suffering for eternity did not exist.
Then, clearly she did not choose to be in Hell. That is the case regardless of whether Hell is a state of
mind/being, a place of torment by fire, etc. The point is that Alice did not choose to go to a place or be
in a situation in which she would suffer for eternity, even if she made choices that resulting in her
meeting Yahwehs criteria for ending up in Hell criteria she did not believe in, regardless of whether
her lack of belief was epistemically culpable.
If Alice indeed ends up in Hell, thats not her choice, but was put in that place or state by whoever

made the rules she did not believe existed, and in this case, that creator is Yahweh.
Now, lets consider another scenario:
Bob never heard of Christianity, Islam, or Hell. Moreover, the concept of eternal punishment is
totally alien to him as well.
Once again, the conclusion is that he did not choose to suffer for eternity, either in a place of torment or
in some other way.
So, if Bob does end up suffering for eternity in Hell, then:
i. If Hell is a place, then Yahweh tossed Bob in there.
Yahweh may have done so personally or by proxy, or by some mechanism that sends people who
meet certain criteria to Hell, but the method of placing Bob in Hell is beside the point here.
ii. If Hell is not a place but a state of mind or state of being, then Yahweh made humans in a way
such that, regardless of what they want, if they meet certain criteria, they enter a state of perpetual
suffering, of which they cannot ever escape. Bob didnt believe that, and the choice is still
Yahwehs. So, clearly the choice is not Bobs, but Yahwehs, even if Bob made choices that met
Yahwehs conditions for ending up in Hell. Moreover, Yahweh has no mercy on him: even if he
asks to be annihilated instead, Yahweh sticks to the infinite suffering instead.
b. That aside, even in the case of criminals, they generally do not choose to be put in prison or death
row. For instance, lets consider the following scenario:
In Iran, the law establishes that if a man has consensual sex with another man, theyre to be
punished by either execution or 100 lashes, depending on the specific sexual activities they
engage in.
Also, in Iran, Ali has sex with Mahmoud, in one of the ways that are punishable by death
according to Iranian law. They do not expect to be caught. However, they get caught and put in
jail for that, and later theyre dragged to the place where theyll be executed, while they beg for
mercy. Eventually, they are executed.
In a case like that, it would not be true case that they freely chose to be arrested or executed, even if

they freely chose to have sex with each other.

Granted, in the case of infinite suffering imposed by an all-powerful, all-seeing entity, there is a
difference: it would be absurd to believe one has a shot at escaping that fate, if one believes that such
entity exists and has imposed such rules. However, many people do not believe that there is an entity
like that, or that such rules have been imposed. Moreover, having an absurd expectation to escape still
wouldnt be a choice to be put in Hell.
The point here is that however one slices it, at least in nearly all cases if not all, humans do not freely
choose to be in Hell regardless of what else they freely choose to do.
Now, there are figurative senses in which someone can say that, for instance, if Tom robs a bank, he
put himself in prison.
For instance, someone could say that Tom put himself in prison meaning that Tom made a free choice
for which he deserved to be put in prison. That may well be true, whereas its not true that Ali or
Mahmoud made a free choice for which they deserved to be arrested or executed.
But in any case, this is a figurative sense of the expression chose to be put in prison. In a literal
sense, neither Ali or Mahmoud chose to be executed, nor did Tom choose to be put in prison.
Back to the cases of Alice and Bob, its even more clear if possible that they did not made a free
choice to suffer infinitely in Hell, but rather, if they end up suffering infinitely, that suffering was
imposed on them by Yahweh.
Someone might claim that they deserved to suffer for eternity, but thats a different objection, which I
tackle elsewhere.
Objection 6.3.2. The people in Hell choose to suffer for eternity, knowing that they would suffer
for eternity.
Reply:
a. They would have to be severely mentally ill to do that, or at least temporarily seriously mentally
impaired, unless thats a condition to save someone else from the same fate. But those arent the cases
under consideration.
b. In any case, its easy to find examples of people who would go to Hell according to Christian rules
(in any variants), but who do not choose to go. There are plenty of real life examples similar to the

cases of Alice and Bob I outlined above, and even plenty of examples of actual bad people (unlike Bob
or Alice in those examples), like serial killers, who would of course not make that choice.
Objection 6.3.3. The people in Hell freely choose to reject Yahweh, who is God, and Hell is
separation from Yahweh/God.
Even if the damned do not know that human minds are such that being separated from Yahweh
results in terrible suffering but they should know -, their choice to be separated from him is a
free choice nonetheless. Yahweh is only respecting their free choice.
Reply:
a. Previous sections show that Yahweh is not God since hes not morally perfect.
b. There is no need to rely on previous sections here, though, since the point is that the claim that
Yahweh is God is shown to be false by the fact that he inflicts infinite torment on people in Hell, and
clearly against their will.
c. It is not the case that they all chose to reject Yahweh. In many cases, people never even heard of him,
and even when they have, they assess hat he does not exist and/or that hes a monstrous imaginary
character. That is an assessment, not a choice.
In fact, a choice is implausible. For instance, I do not choose to believe that Yahweh does not exist any
more than I would choose to believe that, say, Athena, Thor or Darth Vader does not exist. In other
words, I do not choose at all. I assess.
The same goes many if not all people who have heard of Yahweh and do not believe that he exists.
Even if there were always some irrationality in making that assessment not the case, but that aside -,
the fact would remain that most of the people in that situation, if not all of us, do not make such
choices.
The same applies to the assessment that he is a monstrous character. Thats an assessment, not a choice.
d. Even if, say, Mary freely chose to be separated from Yahweh for eternity without knowing that that
would result in eternal torment, and even if she was epistemically at fault for not knowing, that still
would not change the fact that the endless torment is imposed by Yahweh, rather than being freely
chosen by Mary. Shes still not choosing Hell.
On that note, lets consider the following scenario:
Let us suppose that some human scientists genetically engineer some intelligent beings based on,

say, pigs, but vastly modified. They are very intelligent, capable of talking, and they live for over
a millennium.
Also, the scientists design their brains so that, if theyre not in the presence of humans, their
minds enter a state of horrible suffering lets call that state Bell.
Now, lets say that Pig is one of those beings, and his makers give him the chance of choosing to
remain in their company, or to go to some other place, in the presence of individuals of his
species and some other species, but no humans.
Additionally, they give Pig some clues that, if he follows them properly, would lead him to the
conclusions that:
i. In the absence of humans, he will be in a state of terrible suffering.
ii. If he chooses to be in the presence of his makers, he will be allowed to be in the presence
of humans for the rest of his life. But if he chooses otherwise, he wont be in the presence
of humans ever again.
iii. He will not be killed by request, and he wont be allowed to kill himself, either: there
will be robots that will stop him from killing himself if he tried.
iv. He almost certainly still has many centuries to live.
Now, Pig makes a badly mistaken assessment lets say hes epistemically guilty -, and fails to
realize that he will suffer horribly if hes not in the presence of humans.
Then, Pig chooses not to be in the presence of his makers anymore.
So, his makers put him in a place without humans and as he should have expected but didnt
expect at all -, Pig begins to suffer tremendously.
Pig realizes hes made a mistaken assessment, and desperately asks to be put in the presence of
humans again there are no humans before him, but there are cameras and microphones that let
his makers know what hes doing, saying, etc.
But his makers refuse, telling him that he freely chose to be in Bell, and theyre only respecting
his free choice.
So, he asks his makers to have mercy on him and kill him. But his makers reply that hes freely
chosen to be in Bell for the rest of his life, which will almost certainly last for several centuries.
It is apparent in the scenario that Pig did not choose to be in Bell.

It is true that he chose not to be in the presence of his makers or other humans -, but that does not
change the fact that Bell is not chosen by Pig; its imposed by his makers.
In other words, the suffering is not chosen; its imposed by his makers.
Given the amount of suffering, its clear that Pigs makers are torturing him.
It should be also obvious that the actions of Pigs makers are morally evil, but I will address the evil of
hell in the next subsection.
In this subsection, the main point is that Hell, like Bell, is not chosen by the people in Hell, but
imposed on them.
In other words, just as horrible suffering is not chosen by Pig but is instead inflicted on him by his
human makers, infinite torment is not chosen by the people in Hell but is inflicted on them by Yahweh,
regardless of whether Hell is a place, a state of mind, or whatever it is.
Objection 6.3.4. Even if infinite suffering is inflicted on the damned by Yahweh, rather than being
chosen by the damned, he is respecting their freedom by respecting their free choice to be
separated from him from eternity.
Even if the damned do not know that human minds are such that being separated from Yahweh
results in terrible suffering but they should know -, their choice to be separated from him is a
free choice nonetheless. Yahweh is respecting their free choice about that, and hence their
freedom.
Reply:
Regardless of the status of the specific choice to be separated by Yahweh, the fact would remain that
Yahweh is still the one inflicting infinite suffering on those people against their will, since hes the one
who made the rule that those separated from him will suffer forever, since they did not believe the rule
existed, and since theyre begging for mercy but he does not save them.
A good analogous scenario which also highlights that Yahweh is not respecting their freedom in any
significant sense, is the Pig scenario above. Another scenario would be as follows:
Lets suppose that in a distant realm, ruled absolutely by the Emperor, an imperial decree says
that when a person turns eighteen, she has to choose between declaring herself a servant of the
emperor and follow his commands without question regardless of what they are -, or be
classified as an undesirable (the decree applies to both men and women).

Also, the decree says that anyone who fails to follow a command from the Emperor is also
classified as an undesirable.
The decree also establishes that a declaration of undesirability is irreversible, except if the
Emperor chooses to make an exception and that the punishment for undesirability is to be thrown
naked and unarmed into a pit inhabited by a voracious and cunning monster, which will eat them
mostly alive, eating non-vital organs first.
So, at eighteen, Luke refuses to serve the Emperor, escapes and joins a group of rebel fighters.
Surely enough, Luke is classified as an undesirable.
Once Luke is captured, the Emperor sends a message to the rebels, stating: I have chosen to
respect the free choice made by your friend Luke.
So, the Emperor orders his enforcers to throw Luke into the pit; they follow the command, and
Luke is eaten mostly alive, suffering great pain in the process and begging for mercy and for a
quick death until he eventually, but surely not quickly dies.
Would it be sensible to say that the Emperor was just respecting Lukes freedom by respecting his free
choice not to be a servant of the Emperors and/or Lukes free choice to be an undesirable?
I hope its clear enough that it would not be so.
Note that this would not change if the Emperor had instead for instance used advanced technology
to make Luke, and had made Luke in a way such that refusing to serve him would cause Luke great
pain for the rest of his life which Luke did not know because of some epistemic mistake -, instead of
tossing Luke into a pit with a [another] monster.
Objection 6.3.5. Hell is not separation from Yahweh. The damned are actually in the presence of
Yahweh. However, being in the presence of Yahweh results in terrible suffering for them, because
of their rejection of Yahweh. But even if the damned do not know that human minds are such
that being in the presence of Yahweh while rejecting him results in terrible suffering but they
should know -, their choice to be reject him is a free choice nonetheless. Yahweh is only respecting
their free choice.
Reply:
This variant is not relevantly different from the variants involving separation from Yahweh, since the
method of torture is not morally relevant.

The fact remains that Yahweh is inflicting infinite torture, by making human minds in a way that would
result in eternal suffering for those who do not believe that Yahweh exists or who meet whatever
conditions are the conditions for ending up suffering forever.
The damned in many cases do not even believe that that condition exists before they end up in Hell, but
regardless of that, its clear that they do not want to be in Hell. They are in Hell against their will.
Purely for example they would much rather be destroyed, but theyre not allowed by Yahweh to
commit suicide.
Yahweh could, of course, annihilate them for instance -, or give them the means to destroy
themselves, but he chooses not to. Hes also the one who previously chose to make human beings in
such a way that they would suffer horribly in his presence if they failed to believe in his existence or
whatever counts as rejection -, even though he did not have to make such a horrendous rule.
So, regardless of whether Yahwehs intentions are punitive or some other intentions, he is actually
torturing human beings for eternity.
6.4. The immorality of Hell
As we saw in the previous subsection, Hell is imposed by Yahweh on some people.
I hope at this point it is clear to the reader how enormously evil Yahwehs actions are: were talking
about inflicting suffering on people for a thousand years, then a million years, then a trillion years, and
then more it just never ends.
There is no relief, or hope of relief. They may beg for mercy, or even ask to be annihilated. But there is
no way out for them: theyre damned forever, by Yahweh.
It should be obvious that Yahweh is behaving horribly immorally.
In fact, many Christians who think about the matter seem to realize that, and then either they claim that
there is no infinite Hell, or they come up with untenable views, such as the view that the damned put
themselves in Hell.
Leaving aside versions of Christianity that do not posit an infinite Hell which are still vulnerable to
the points made in earlier sections of this article, but not to the objections based on the evil of Hell -,
the fact is that infinite suffering is not chosen but imposed by Yahweh.
Objection 6.4.1. There is no infinite Hell. Thats a mistaken interpretation of Christianity.
Reply:

As I pointed out earlier, versions of Christianity comprising the vast majority of adherents contend that
Hell is infinite, but some claim otherwise, or even deny that there is Hell at all.
If a version of Christianity denies that there is infinite Hell or, at least, does not affirm that there is -,
then its immune to the objection based on Hell, as I recognized earlier. However, the points made in
earlier sections still show that those versions of Christianity are not true, either (which points work
depend on the specific version, though most work for versions comprising the vast majority of
adherents).
Objection 6.4.2. The people in Hell deserve to suffer forever, for their sins, and so Yahweh is
doing justice by imposing infinite suffering on them.
Reply:
Even if one considers some of the worst crimes, like some cases of murder, rape, rape plus murder,
mass torture, etc., that is not true: if someone commits such actions, arguably they deserve to suffer for
that, so someone might say that they deserve to suffer for years, or even for decades, or perhaps even
for centuries.
I dont know whats the maximum they might deserve, but one thing appears obvious: they dont
deserve to suffer for eternity.
One should, perhaps, stop for a moment and consider what the concept of Hell entails: Its suffering for
millions of years, and then trillions of years, and then more, and so on. It just never ends.
The punishment seems clearly infinitely disproportionate even in the case of the worst criminals.
Objection 6.4.3.The people in Hell deserve to suffer forever, not so much for adultery, rape or
murder which only merit finite punishment -, but for the infinite sin of offending (and/or
disobeying) a morally perfect creator, Yahweh who is God.
Reply:
a. As previous sections show, Yahweh is far from being morally perfect, but leaving that aside, and
confusing terminology aside, if one ponders the matter carefully, it should be apparent that disobeying
an order from a creator even if he were morally perfect would not make a human being deserving of
infinite suffering, and the same goes for offending a morally perfect creator.
In other words, even if God exists, then offending or disobeying God simply does not merit infinite
punishment.

The claim that people actually deserve to go to Hell is in serious conflict with our sense of right and
wrong. For instance, lets consider the following scenario:
There exists one personal being, and no other moral agents; lets call that being for instance -,
Joe.
Joe knows that if he creates morally flawed moral agents, then each of those beings will, at least
once, behave immorally. He also believes that if such beings behave immorally at least once -,
they will deserve to be tormented for eternity, and that he will reckon that they will deserve it.
Moreover, Joe knows that if he reckons that someone deserves infinite torment, he will in fact
inflict infinite torment on that person Joe has the power to do so -; no amount of begging for
forgiveness or anything else will change that. Joe knows all of that perfectly well.
Also, Joe knows that, if he creates a morally flawed moral agent, then Joe will in fact inflict
infinite torment on her. Moreover, Joe not only knows that, but hes consciously aware of that.
So, what does Joe do?
He proceeds to create billions of flawed moral agents.
Then, each of these agents behave immorally at least once, and Joe proceeds to torment every
single one of them for eternity, with no mercy whatsoever.
If this objection were correct, then for all we know, Joe might even be morally perfect.
But its obvious that Joe would be a moral monster.
b. Moreover, if this objection were correct, then the normal human moral condemnation against a serial
rapist and murderer because he intends to rape and murder his victims [20] not for offending some
morally perfect creator -, would be completely out of place. What would really matter would be his
actions that offended maybe not even deliberately a morally perfect creator.
After carefully considering the matter, it should be clear that this view conflicts with a human normal
moral sense. What normally matters when assessing the morality of those actions is not whether they
offended a creator, but rather factors such what he intends to do to his victims, what he believes and is
justified to believe about the effect of his actions on his victims, and so on, not how a creator any
creator might feel about it.
c. Incidentally, many Christians who have pondered the matter of infinite Hell seem to have reached the
same conclusion namely, that humans do not deserve infinite suffering, and that it would be evil to

impose that on them -, and so nowadays many Christians reject the idea of an infinite punishment
imposed by Yahweh, and instead maintain that Hell is some state chosen by those in Hell, or that Hell is
finite or even nonexistent. While the view that Hell is finite or nonexistent does avoid the argument
from Hell though some of the points made in other sections still show that those versions of
Christianity are not true, either -, the claim that Hell is chosen by those in Hell is untenable, as I
showed earlier.
Objection 6.4.4. The people in Hell deserve to suffer forever, not for rape, adultery or murder,
but for the infinite sin of causing infinite suffering on a morally perfect creator, who abhors any
wrongdoing, and whose infinite suffering increases with every single immoral action [or, as a
variant of this objection, with some specific immoral actions]. The suffering of each of the damned is
similar to the suffering he inflicted on Yahweh, who is God.
Reply:
a. As usual, theres always the alternative of pointing out that Yahweh is far from being morally perfect,
as previous sections show, so he isnt God, though as usual, this is not necessary in this context, as the
Hell-based moral objection to versions of Christianity that posit infinite Hell stands on its own.
b. Also, for reasons similar to those given above, this objection too is in conflict with our moral sense,
so even if God exists, human do not deserve infinite suffering.
The Joe scenario is also applicable to this variant of the objection, and clear enough to show that it
fails.
In addition to all of that, we can point out the following:
i. If a being say, B were to suffer for eternity for every single immoral act that occurs and
with a level of suffering comparable to that of the people in Hell for every single case -, then
freely carrying out an act of creation from which he knows - some immoral actions will
eventually result, would appear to be a free choice entailing to be in Hell forever. He could freely
choose not to create or not to create anything that would yield that result.
So, it seems clear that its not a case of negligence if a human does not factor in when she acts
the possibility of the suffering of a being with such a completely alien kind of mind.
To put a concrete example: intuitively, its clear that a shoplifter does not have to factor in the
potential infinite suffering of radically alien invisible beings when she considers whether or not

to shoplift, anymore than she has to consider the possibility that, say, eating an apple will result in
some invisible entity suffering infinite torment because said entity suffers like that when someone
eats an apple.
While its true that she has a moral sense by while she can tell shoplifting is immoral but eating
apples is not (in usual cases, all other things equal, etc.), her moral assessment about shoplifting
requires considerations about consequences for things such as the well-being of the owner of the
shop, other humans, etc., but not of about a being with a radically different kind of mind, who
would freely choose to make morally flawed entities, even though he knows that that will result
in eternal Hell for himself.
Similar considerations apply if the being suffers eternally for some but not all immoral actions.
ii. This objection would have the odd result that the creator would be in a state of eternal
suffering, in a sense in Hell. That does not appear to be compatible with Christianity at all
though this isnt the main objection to the objection.
iii. It wouldnt help this objection to say that the creator would suffer like that for every immoral
action unless he inflicts infinite torment on the wrongdoers or something along those lines -,
because in that case, its apparent that the creator in question should either refrain from creating
or endure the consequences of his choice, which would not be the fault of humans committing
shoplifting or any other immoral actions, given that clearly its not the case they should factor in
such radically alien beings with such radically alien minds.
Objection 6.4.5. Our sense of right and wrong cannot be trusted on these matters, since its
flawed because of the Fall. We ought to listen to Yahweh instead, since his sense of right and
wrong is perfect.
Reply:
That would amount to simply assume Christianity, instead of assessing whether its true.
As I explained when replying to preliminary objections, we can often properly use our sense of right
and wrong to assess whether a religion is true, and in particular, we can properly do so when there is
sufficient information in the religious story to make an assessment of the behavior of people in a
certain scenario. Thats often the case in the Bible, and thats what Ive been doing.
Objection 6.4.6. Jesus suffered for our sins and died on the cross to save us. If some people

ungratefully reject his offer, its only fair that they suffer for eternity.
Reply:
a. Generally, non-Christians do not reject any offers. They do not believe that there is an offer in the
first place. Some of us believe that even if Jesus made an offer about twenty centuries ago, he was not
in a position to meet his end of the bargain, and in any case hes not making that offer anymore because
hes dead.
b. Others, like Muslims, for instance, dont believe in Christianity, but believe that Jesus still is out
there so to speak. Yet, they too do not believe that there is an offer from Jesus to avoid Hell by
becoming Christians, or generally by meeting the conditions that different versions of Christianity
posit.
c. Even if there were some epistemic guilt on the part of all unbelievers; even if there were some
irrationality in reaching the conclusion that there is no Hell, and/or no offer from Jesus to be accepted
or rejected, etc., the point would remain that they would not deserve infinite torment for making such
an error.
d. If Yahweh chose to suffer as a means of giving some people a chance to avoid the infinite torment he
himself would otherwise impose on them, that would be another oddity of his radically alien mind odd from a human perspective, of course.
But the fact that Yahweh suffered by choice would not change the fact that human beings do not
deserve to be tormented forever. That would be Yahwehs fault.
e. Even if Yahweh were giving all humans a chance to avoid eternal punishment by worshiping him, he
would still be coercing humans into worshiping him under the unjust threat of infinite torment, and
even worse, carrying out that punishment if someone fails to worship him.
So, even if some people were actually rejecting his offer, it wouldnt be remotely fair that they would
suffer for eternity. Instead, those few rejecting the offer would be courageous people who would stand
up against a moral monster who demands worship under the threat of infinite torment. Perhaps, they
would also be foolish because they would have no chance against Yahwehs immense power.
But what they wouldnt be is deserving of infinite torment just because they refuse to worship the
monstrous entity threatening to impose infinite torment of them and an entity would have to be truly
monstrous to seriously demand that, and even much more so to carry out the threat.

7. Heaven.
While not nearly as unjust as in the case of Hell, Heaven too involves unjust behavior on Yahweh's
part.
In particular, I would like to highlight that people who sincerely repent and meet conditions like
accepting Jesus as their lord and savior, and/or confessing their sins sincerely depending on the
version of Christianity escape punishment for their immoral behavior, no matter how immoral it was.
For example, a brutal dictator who tortured and murdered peaceful opponents, a thug who engaged in
armed robbery, rape and murder, a con artist who ruined the lives of thousands of people, leaving them
in poverty, may repent in their deathbeds, accept Jesus and/or confess their sins, and then die.
According to at least nearly all versions of Christianity endorsed, considering them together, by
nearly all Christians -, those people do not go to Hell, or to any place of punishment.
Of course, they do not deserve to be punished for eternity. That too would be unjust even much more
so than letting them get away with their atrocities, as Yahweh does. But they do deserve some
punishment for sure, like, say, many years of imprisonment and/or death for real so to speak i. e., the
end of existence. Yet, they avoid the punishment they deserve. Even the Catholic Purgatory is avoided
by those people, since Purgatory appears to be for lesser faults [21]- which, presumably, were not
confessed -, not for atrocities like the ones I described above in this section, which are mortal sins and
would lead to Hell if not confessed.
Granted, those people feel sorry for what they did, but even then, those people are guilty of atrocities
and deserve punishment for them. However, Yahweh lets them get away with it. That shows that
Yahweh is not perfectly just. Of course, given the extent of Yahweh's atrocities, this particular matter is
only a drop in an ocean, but still, it's another example showing that a Christian moral claim namely,
that Yahweh is perfectly just -, is false.
An interesting point here is that the usual Christian view that Yahweh's alleged perfect justice needs to
be seen also in light of his mercy does not work. In fact, since Yahweh's mercy or alleged mercy
involves leaving some people guilty of atrocities unpunished if they repent and/or confess, accept
Jesus, etc., it is incompatible with perfect justice those people still deserve punishment for what they
did. They suffering they might endure merely for knowing they're guilty for a brief period until they die
is not a punishment, and in any event, it would not be enough if it were.

8. Conclusions.
After assessing Yahwehs behavior, its clear that hes not a morally good person. Moreover, hes a
moral monster. Of course, while this is enough to conclude that Christianity is not true, that does not
entail that Yahweh does not exist. My position on the matter is that are conclusive reasons to believe
that he does not exist, but thats beyond the scope of this essay.
Additionally, it is clear that many people ought to have disobeyed biblical commands, that Hell is
enormously unjust and Heaven less so but still unjust.
As for the most liberal versions of Christianity, they seem to misinterpret much of the Gospels and/or
the Old Testament not that more conservative versions interpret all of it properly; different versions
just seem to make different mistakes. But leaving that aside, the most liberal versions of Christianity
also promote some false moral beliefs even their moral errors usually arent as bad as those made by
more conservative versions. Based on that, the proper conclusion is that they are false religions as well.
Notes and references.
[0] Someone might object to this and say that Christianity is a single religion, even if Christians
sometimes disagree with each other on some doctrinal issues.
There is no need to address that matter here, since whether theyre different religions or one religion
with different interpretations, I will raise objections to all of the versions of Christianity Ive
encountered, which includes all of the most usual ones.
Also, someone might reject the expression versions of Christianity. In that case, I invite readers to
pick their preferred terminology, but the substantive objection to Christianity are not affected.
[1]
Open English Bible (OEB): http://openenglishbible.org/
In particular, the quotes in this essay are from the following version:
http://openenglishbible.org/oeb/2013.11/OEB-2013.11-US.html
[2]
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/8/2/9/8294/8294-h/8294-h.htm
[3]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited

[4]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1al-RuUEVxHk3ldQQC8o0U5ES3T7MfnmxdaKjVAl0Zzc/pub
[5] Or, for that matter, Catholic Tradition, and/or some other specific traditional sources.
I will focus on the Bible for the sake of brevity, since the reply is essentially the same in other cases.
[6] I will argue that such claims are untenable. In particular, I will argue that it can be established from
some of the tenets usually held by those who claim that people are in Hell by their own free choice, and
obvious facts about human behavior, that at least most if not all of the people in Hell would be there not
by their own free choice.
[7] It is true that many people reject many of the moral assessments that are crystal clear to me. But
that fact would not constitute a good objection to my moral case against Christianity, just as the fact
that the Taliban or many present-day Iranian or Saudi religious and/or political leaders, etc.
rejected/reject many of the moral assessments that are crystal clear to me, is not a problem for my
assessments of their actions not a significant problem, anyway.
[8]
http://ebible.org/web/DEU22.htm#V0
[9] Someone might suggest that said lack of knowledge of other religions is improbable in the early
21st century even in rural Afghanistan. That does not seem to be the case, but in any event, one may
just adjust the scenario and assume Hamid lives in the late 20th century instead, or if it comes to that, in
the 19th century instead, or in the 18th century.
To be clear, I dont see why such modifications would be needed, but the point is that they wouldnt be
a problem if required, and the scenario still works as an analogy.
[10] The Catholic New American Bible includes whipping him as part of the punishment.
[11] If one puts aside for a moment the assumption that Yahweh exists and assesses the evidence
properly, my conclusion is that he does not exist, and the monsters were the humans who supported this
law. But thats another matter.
[12] One might argue that chimpanzees, bonobos and some other non-human animals are moral agents,
though the matter is debatable. There is no need to take a stance on that here, since the Old Testament
legal disposition is not limited to those non-human animals.
[13] According to the GWEB, it seems Yahweh claims that they committed abominations against their

gods*. Thats also what the King James Bible says, as well as a few other translations. But some other
translations disagree. Im not taking a stance here.
*Side note: While I think that the term god is quite vague and often problematic for a number of
reasons, I think there is no need for greater precision in this particular context.
[14] I got the idea of adding subsection 4.1.2. after an exchange with a poster named Jeff at Randal
Rausers blog.
[15]
Im assuming no other factors at play, like Alice having an obligation to keep in a particularly good
shape for some other reason, or threats by third parties, etc. We can in any case further specify the
scenario if needed, but the idea should be clear. We may also assume, if needed, that Alice has no
family or anyone in charge, etc.
We may also assume that Alice does not have any moral and/or religious objections to organ donation,
and that the hospital in question provides high quality medical care, including transplants.
[16] Sources:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-1037. http://vaticanament/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM
New American Bible (Judith 16): http://www.usccb.org/bible/judith/16
[17]
Sources:
http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/orthodoxbibles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
[18]
In addition to the Book of Judith, the following sources provide evidence that the Eastern Orthodox
Church holds that Hell is eternal.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Mettalinos-Paradise-And-Hell-According-To-OrthodoxTradition.php
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell#Eastern_Orthodox_concepts_of_hell
http://www.antiochian.org/node/18270
[19]

While there are good moral objections to a finite Hell if it involves certain forms of punishment or if it
punishes, say, unbelievers, there are plenty of potential variants and addressing all or most of them
would make this essay much longer than it is.
[20]
More precisely, what the criminal deliberately did to his victims as far as he could rationally tell is the
morally relevant point, since for instance he would be just as immoral if, say, someone puts him in
a holodeck where he believes that hes raping and killing people, even if he is not and no one is
suffering. But thats not the matter under consideration here.
[21]
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1031-1033:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm