HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


The Bible which Jesus declared infallible and to be of divine authorship as much as human has God commanding his people to stone certain sinners to death.


God and Jesus commanded corrupt rebellious Israel to kill and administer extreme capital punishment. That says it all! Bad enough to ask a holy nation to do it!


Here are the crimes demanding execution by divine command.  The execution was typically performed by stoning.  A naughty daughter of a priest was however burned to death.


Murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21)
Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)
Witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:5, 1 Samuel 28:9)
Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)
Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)
Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)
Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)
Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)
False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

Christians are not disgusted enough by the murderous laws of the Old Testament in which God commanded that gays and other "sinners" be stoned to death to hate the Bible.


God in Numbers 23:3-4 wants people impaled - so why don't we consider declaring that Vlad Dracula the Impaler was divine or God's servant?


The first step to religious violence is in justifying religious violence that has already taken place or that is happening. Christian peace is not real peace. A religion condoning great evil cannot boast even if it is not that violent. What about the principle? Is the reason it seems to behave most of the time because it deals with its desire for blood by condoning? Condoning can be passive aggression. Violence in spirit is nothing to boast about. It is still violence. It is only chance that is stopping it turning into actual raw and physical violence.


Christians are not disgusted by Jesus who in John 8 refused to say that stoning adulteresses was wrong and who said that stoning is fine as long as you shouldn't be stoned yourself!


A religion of peace that is passive aggressive is not a religion of peace at all. It is a religion of cold war.


Jesus supported and enjoyed the Jewish Festivals which glorified suffering sent by God and violence. The Passover celebrates how God's angel murdered the firstborn of Egypt.


Jesus took responsibility for writing the Old Testament through divinely inspired men despite its commanding in the name of God that homosexual men who have had sex and other "sinners" be savagely murdered by stoning.  He said that not a dot of it would pass away until God fulfilled it - meaning God fully approves of it. If God changes a law, it is not because he thinks it was wrong before.


It is not true that Jesus dropped the murderous obligations laid down by God. Jesus celebrated the feast of death, the Passover and based the Eucharist on it according to the Church. The feast praised God for killing innocent children in Egypt and was based on that event. God was trying to force Egypt to let Israel go free from slavery. Neither Jesus or the Eucharist deserve any respect for honouring evil.


Jesus Christ: “I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)


"Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctifies him, and has insulted the spirit of grace? For we know God who said, "It is my job to avenge and I will repay!" - Hebrews 10.


Christians boast that they do not have to keep the law from God about stoning homosexuals and others to death for Jesus did away with it. But the text above tells them that such an abolition is no consolation for God will still have them punished if not by others then he will do it himself. And indeed the text says a fate worse than stoning awaits.


The law of Moses claimed to be divinely inspired. It required that gays who had sex and adulterous people and murderers must be put to death by stoning without mercy. The above New Testament text says that they deserve it. It also says that those who know Jesus and who sin deserve worse. The sins listed in Hebrews are purely religious ones - insulting Jesus and treating his blood with contempt. God said he will take revenge. The text does not say he will take revenge himself without using us to do it. In fact, he said it when he was using Israel to punish people by application of the law of Moses. So the text means he will use the Church to destroy his enemies.


Paul wrote in Romans 1 that everybody knows that homosexuals and other sinners should be destroyed - deserving to die means they are forcing God to kill them. "Knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them". The text could be speaking of God's law that homosexuals are to be murdered by stoning. It probably is - he was speaking to the Jewish Christians of Rome who are obviously familiar enough with the Old Testament for he talks to them as if they know it well.


The death penalty under divine law is not optional nor a maximum penalty. Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death.... You shall have the same law for the [foreigner] and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God." Lev. 24:17-22.


'Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death... So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.' Num. 35:31-33


Christians then do not oppose the stoning in principle. They do not see it as wrong in itself. When God takes life, it is easy to take the next step and say stoning cannot be wrong in principle. He might command you to stone when he is master of death and life. If you think you can kill and God approves and you are wrong it is not very wrong! Not when God is okay with killing in general and uses your mistakes in his divine and all-wise plan.


The Christians approve of keeping the rule about stoning but up to when Jesus (allegedly) abolished it.


Jesus even if he did abolish it, did not state that the rule was wrong. Changing the law, does not necessarily mean it was wrong before but only that it is time for a change. And it could be that the law was not abolished but just didn't apply in Jesus' day. A law going out of date does not mean the law is being changed. And God keeping the law to kill for us means it is in force.


Jesus supposedly abolished the stoning law when he told people who were going to stone a woman to death for adultery that the first stone should be cast by the person without sin. But this case had nothing to do with the law. It was a lynch mob who wanted to stone her not the proper authorities. And he did say the sinless person had a right to stone her. The episode confirms the validity of the stoning law.


According to Jesus, Matthew 10:28 New International Version (NIV), Jesus was so desensitised to executions that he said, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." One would wonder that when Jesus would have at least as an ordinary Jew before his ministry believed that cutting people's hands off for stealing was God's will, if he did not mean it literally when he said that if you sin with your eye you must cut it out.


The claim that the murderous Old Testament laws were only for people living centuries before Jesus is easily refuted. Jesus told the Jews off for not stoning people to death if they cursed their parents, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying... `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Matthew 15:3-4. "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." [Jesus] said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother; and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'" Mark 7:8-11.  Note that he was very angry that they annulled the murderous command. 


In Luke 19:27 Jesus speaks of himself as the one who is going to have those who do not want him to rule them slain. He even says he wants to watch them being killed and for them to be brought before him. You might say he did not mean it literally. But then why did he not speak of having those people expelled from the nation or society or something? Why killing? If you think you can imagine it is not literal don't think you have the right to tell somebody not to take it literally and to start lusting for blood.


The notion that the stoning command was abolished is based on the idea that the law was a civil law. But there is no evidence for the law being merely civil law at all in the Old Testament. It was religious law. There is nothing that indicates that the law only applied in the day it was written. That God put it in the Bible implies that it wasn't. If you were God, you could imagine yourself giving such awful commandments by revelation to a prophet but you would keep them out of the scriptures if they were temporary. It is not the kind of thing that should be in a holy book.


Even if the stoning law was a civil law, it was also a moral law. In other words, if there is no civil law demanding stoning, then stone them for the sake of the moral law. Civil and moral laws may at times be identical. The Law of Moses has God stating that if homosexuals are stoned to death their own blood is upon them. In other words, it was not the law to blame for stoning them but themselves for doing something so evil. They are morally intolerable.


The legal systems of today say that the civil law protects public morality and may let people do what they want in private. Nobody thinks there is a contrast between law and morality in principle.


Some Christians today go into politics and defend the death penalty for homosexuals. They understand their religion correctly at that point. Uganda is an example of that!


Ask yourself:


Why do Christians never express disgust at the murders of innocent people endorsed in the Bible under God's law?


Why do they deny that those who gathered sticks on the Sabbath, who committed adultery, women who were thought to have married while pretending to be virgins, who kidnapped, who adored harmless pagan gods, sons who were layabouts, who had homosexual sex were innocent people? They were - their "crimes" were none of the laws business and killing them was not going to help anybody.


Why do they never express disgust at how those murders were carried out? - gay men were stoned to death by the people. First stoning is too cruel and involving the people and not an executioner is just evil. It is too much.


Why do Christians lie that God was compelled to take such extreme measures for the people were so bad? If they were that stubbornly evil then to empower them by giving them the right to legally murder people cruelly was extremely unwise!


An excuse for the severity appears in Leviticus 19:29. It commands that you must not make a whore of your daughter in case the whole land falls to whoredom and become full of wickedness. So it argues that tolerating sin or endorsing it leads to a slippery slope that ruins the entire nation. In real life though, it always ends up being a minority who do such things. The whore in the Bible is not always linked to the selling of sex but to women being too permissive and having sex outside marriage. The argument that the command was about stopping Israel having temple prostitutes is speculation. The commandment merely says that sex outside marriage is a sin period and commands us to believe that any tolerance of illicit sex will soon ruin the nation.


Why do Christians say that the Bible God was head of state for the Hebrews as if that somehow excuses the laws or necessarily implies we don't have to worry about them now? God did not function as head of state. He gave a law and men were to administer it. They were the heads. God nowhere claimed to be political king of the nation. And even if it he did, it does not mean he thought it was okay for non-Hebrew nations to just discard or ignore his law. If God is the ideal government then each nation should keep his laws as much as possible.


Why do Christians lie that God was head when the Bible says no such thing, when God only gave occasional revelations and did not look after the day to day business, when Israel was not a state when it was wandering through the jurisdictions of real states and when Israel was a religion and not really a state in any form?


Why do they try to make out that the law is no longer used as if that makes the past murders minor and irrelevant?


Why can't they give you a text from the Bible that explicitly revokes those laws? They will say God commanded love but he did that among the bad commandments too. Love your neighbour comes from the most vicious book of the Old Testament.


Why don't they admit that the alleged change of the law is only an assumption?


Why don't they admit that if the rule falls into disuse that is no comfort? - it needs repudiation and an apologetic abrogation.


Why do they say that God as master of life and death has the right to tell people to kill?


Why do they not admit that devotion to the Bible and the Jesus who endorsed it is implicit and indirect homophobia of the sickest kind?


Why do they even use the violent texts in tracts and theological documents to argue that homosexuality is a sin?


Why do clergy devote their lives and energy and money to a God who is revealed in the Bible, a Bible of dubious morality?


Why do they not admit that though moral relativism - the notion that good and evil depend on what we think is right and wrong meaning that if a country believes in infanticide that makes it right - is a terrible evil and turns people into moral do-nothings that they are worse than most relativists? Most relativists do not agree with the stonings. A faith that says God can make murder right is a relativist faith.


Why do they not do the normal thing - regard scriptures that endorse violence as man-made and fit for the incinerator?


You need very strong grounds, as in evidence or proof, to endorse a scripture as being from God for you cannot risk condoning the reprehensible that should not be condoned. Nobody cares about such proof.


Atheists do not feel obligated to condone whatever evil some atheists do. Only religion obligates people to approve of divine evil and risk insulting God if there is one by saying he commanded terrible things.


Do not argue that the Bible, the infallible word of God, proves that he does not require the death penalty for he commanded us to love our neighbour as ourselves. This objection ignores the fact that God gave the command in the middle of a book, Leviticus, that commanded a wide use of the death penalty for religious and civil reasons. The commandment gets a brief mention and God in Leviticus treats it as he wanted us to miss it. When Jesus made it the second great commandment he was quoting Leviticus and implying approval for Leviticus as the word of God. Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment of God was and he picked out two from the Torah implying that the other commandments too - including the bloodletting ones - were the commandments of God. The love endorsed is not about feelings but about giving people the dignity they give themselves through their actions. It is love to destroy a homosexual for he is only receiving what his dignity demands. We must accept God's right to establish such a penalty but has he abolished or suspended it so that we don't have to inflict it today?


Here is a Christian argument that the stoning law is not to be obeyed by Christians today -


The Old Testament theocratic law required the death penalty for incest in Israel (Lev. 18:7-17, 29; 20:11-12). Even if this seems unjust, we must remember that the people went into the covenant in complete freedom and consented to these rules or to obey God in whatever he would command. Thus they asked for the penalty if they break the law.


In the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4), the Messiah came and brought forth His catholic or universal church from its Jewish swaddling bands, necessitating a change in the law (Heb. 7:12). The apostles and prophets, whom God used to write the New Testament, set forth the will of Jesus Christ for His catholic church (Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11).


When a man committed incest in the church of Corinth (I Cor. 5:1), Paul did not require the death penalty for him. Instead, the apostle required excommunication from the church and kingdom of God, unless the man repented (I Cor. 5:4-7). Both terrible divine judgements—execution in the Old Testament theocracy and excommunication in the New Testament church—preserve the holiness of God’s church, a reflection of the holiness of God Himself.


The man is handed over to Satan. This is assumed to mean that anybody put out of the Church is at the mercy of the Devil.


Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”) required the death penalty for homosexuality in Israel. (See also Leviticus 18:22, 29). Similar to the example of incest, the New Testament does not require the death penalty for homosexuals. There were converted homosexuals in the church of Corinth (I Cor. 6:9-11)! The execution of homosexuals in Israel (the Old Testament church) is equivalent to excommunication from the New Testament church. Thus it is a contradiction in terms to speak of gay church members or gay church office bearers or gay Christians. Any churches, therefore, that receive or tolerate impenitent homosexuals as members are therefore false churches in rebellion to the will of Christ.


Do not forget that those who were stoned to death agreed to be stoned if they broke the law in certain ways. 


When they were breaking the law two witnesses had to see them doing it. 


One or both witnesses have to warn the one committing the act to stop and warn of the consequences.

The sinners deliberately ignore the warning and carry on with or in the act.


We conclude then that the stoning laws were fair and reflect the love and justice of God and his respect for what people choose be it bad or good for themselves.




To allege that the cruelty of the law was fair for the people consented to it being put over them is ridiculous. Such decisions are only taken by the majority of leaders. Not all Hebrews could have wanted the law over them.  The Bible continually complains that few wanted to keep the law.  And what about their children who were not even born when the law took authority? And it is easy to consent to a brutal law when you don't know yet what it is like to live under it.


Nobody says that doing evil to people is okay if they consent.  Christians however do say it!  If they won't say it then their Bible speaks for them!!  They are no better than murderers!


And as for the stuff about two witnesses always being required the law decreed that they must be listened to even though it is aware that witnesses can and do lie.  If you got somebody stoned to death by your lies and were found out when it was too late you got stoned yourself.  That is not a law that is concerned a lot about human life!  The main argument against capital punishment is that innocent people are too often executed.  The law sometimes had people put to death without two witnesses - men from surrounding nations were murdered just because they were from non-Israelite nations.
The change in the Law referred to in Hebrews 7:12 does not imply that the moral rules of the Old Testament, such as the duty of the God fearing state to destroy gay people are wrong or changed or obsolete. Christians retain many of the laws so it could be they should have retained the murderous laws too.
The notion that Israel was ruled by God is nonsense. God gave Israel laws and it was to appoint people to enforce them. God was the legislator of Israel not its head of state. There is no room for thinking that the law does not apply to any nation but Israel for it was ruled by God. It was not.

When Judaism was only a temporary religion that was meant to evolve into Christianity its fulfilment it doesn’t necessarily imply the law had to be changed except in the sense that it was made tougher or more explicit. It is worse to sin when you have experienced the fulfilled faith than the preparatory one. And what you find in the New Testament is Jesus saying the law is fine as it is and he wants us to obey it even more. For example, the rule against adultery was stated to be about more than just actual adultery but was also banning adulterous intentions and desires.

The Bible time and time again says that the Old Testament is full of moral example.
The man in Corinth was living in sin with his step-mother. He was at least claiming to be a Christian. Paul judged him as worthy of being handed over to Satan by the Church for the destruction of his flesh so that he might be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus. Did he mean execution? Perhaps the Christians did try to execute the guilty man but by cursing him and urging God to destroy him in the hope that the suffering this entails might make him turn to God again. And the law to execute does not require one to execute where it is impossible.
The rulers of Corinth would have destroyed the Church if it went and killed the man. If you can get away with executing you can do it. That is the New Testament doctrine for not once does it hint that the execution laws are done away.
The Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis argues that handing the man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh does mean execution. The Christians saw secular and pagan states as the emissaries of Satan though God still used them to punish the wicked (Romans 13). This accounts for how Paul wrote that the man was to be given to the Devil to make it possible for him to be saved on the day of the Lord - that is the day of the final judgement. The day of the Lord was the last day. You only think about the last day in this life if this life is about to end and the last day is therefore the only concern.
Handing over to Satan may mean handing him over to the civil authorities and the destruction may be civil punishment, capital punishment. The fact that Paul sounds so certain the man will be destroyed indicates that he did mean execution. He wants the man put to death so that he may repent before he dies.
In fairness, Paul decided in 2 Corinthians that the man should be reinstated for he suffered the censure of the majority and repented. The Church obviously had to judge and condemn him in preparation for the execution. But the man repented before the execution was to happen.
Note: The Same Source says that the Church has the right to use torture to destroy heresy. Question 41.
Christians have argued that God made brutal laws just because if he didn't please a brutal people he would have lost them completely. John Calvin, the great Protestant reformer, said that God had to condescend to the level of the Jews be able to manage them. He would have seen that God didn't attack polygamy or slavery and taken those as examples. Jesus said that God only let Israel have divorce because it was too stubborn to do without it. Calvin used the condescension excuse to account for the horrific parts of the Bible where God urges the people to be draconian in their administration of his Law. This excuse is used to explain why Christians do not need to keep the nasty rules. It is invalid and wholly unconvincing for there has always been and will always be nations that need the drastic treatment Israel needed. Calvin saw himself as a reformer of apostate Christianity - meaning it was worse than Israel. At least Israel was bad before the saviour came! According to Calvin, Christianity had the perfection of truth and spat on it. Calvin had no real answer - the answer he gave is actually an incitement to the Church to restore the malevolent rules.
The law of Moses never sees itself as a necessary evil. It sees itself as full of justice and truth. God never says the law is formulated so severely JUST because any leniency would mean the people would take advantage. The main thought is that the law is good to be so severe. It is not a regrettable necessity. It is good. However it is clear that the law does forbid lenient interpretations. God forbade any tampering even with the smallest rules.
The notion that the law had to be very brutal implies that something like it will need to be put in place again when people get too out of control.
The notion that the law has to be very brutal implies that there is nothing wrong with barbaric deterrents.
The notion that the law is about justice or love more than control implies that it should not be done away and cannot be done away with.
Perhaps more importantly, the Old Testament never says that certain sinners people are to be destroyed by stoning for any other reason than that they are evil. In other words, its just right. The Law of Moses didn’t make it right to kill these people. It said it only RECOGNISED that it was right. God told the people that the Law was in their mind and heart and whole being and how could it be if it didn’t make sense or didn’t claim to be rational?
There were converted homosexuals in Corinth. But this has nothing to do with showing the death penalty was abolished by God. The law of Moses granted forgiveness to people who became members of God's people. If they engaged in gay sex or adultery afterwards then they were stoned.
Christians use the God has mysterious ways excuse a lot for terrible doctrines. Jesus said that God was like a human father, daddy, meaning that he rejected far-fetched excuses and doctrines about mysterious ways as showing how a good God could allow or command evil. He assumed it was straightforward. To him, God was obviously right to have say gay people stoned to death. Jesus in Matthew 7:9-11 said that God is actually better at giving good things to his child than a human father is. He will not give you a stone if you ask for bread.
Significantly the Jewish leaders tell Jesus he does not change God’s teaching to suit man and truly follows the Jewish faith (Mark 12:14). In other words, he supported the law with its predominately nasty rules from God to the hilt.
If religion commands you to condone violence thousands of years ago can the religion be used as an excuse for violence? No it is not an excuse - it is a reason. You cannot put violence in people's hearts and then pretend that it is not your fault if they act on it.


Good is not good when mixed with evil for that is what evil does. It likes to hide and sting unexpectedly. That is why the Bible should be called evil instead of pretending there is good in it. The good in the Bible is not the Bible’s good.

Christians say God now punishes and gives the death penalty himself but that is them being violent by proxy. That is the most important lesson to take away from reading this page.
Is Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians?
This Christian site accepts that the New Testament did not run the Law of Moses out of town but accepted it. It argues that Matthew 5 has Jesus stating that he has no intention of doing away with the Law of Moses and what he does with it is he gives out a stricter interpretation of it. But strangely it argues then that Jesus did discontinue some parts of the Law. 1 Samuel 15:22,23/Isaiah 1:11-17/Jeremiah 7:21-23/Proverbs 21:3/Matthew 9:13/23:23 are said to make no sense unless the law can be given three distinctions which are Moral, Ceremonial and Civil. Not once however in these verses does God even hint that the Moral laws and the Civil laws and the Ceremonial laws are to be treated as three units. What they are is three different kinds of law in one law based on love. The first two cannot be changed because of the link with morality but the latter can if it is only temporary and states that clearly. You can’t change what love is. The law plainly commands and practices hatred so God is assuming that we need to hate in order to love properly so that is how a law of love can encourage and foster hatred.
Christians, assuming that they are to have any distinctions at all, are to have just Moral and Ceremonial law. The Christians make the distinctions for they hold that the moral law of God is unchangeable while the civil and ceremonial law of God is changeable. But when there is no evidence that moral and civil are not the same they can only hope for the abolition of the Ceremonial law. They simply have to hold that it is right to slay homosexuals and other sinners Moses wanted dead in the name of God.
A case for holding that Paul believed that the law that could not save was a legalistic interpretation of the Law and not the law itself as it actually was is dismissed. Paul never hinted that he meant only the interpretation of the law was dangerous for salvation not the Law itself. Paul’s word for the Law backs this dismissal up.
Then the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian Geisler that all God’s laws must be in accord with God’s nature but need not be necessitated by that nature and so they can be changed. In other words, God can forbid you to pay taxes to the temple so that the poor may be given the money and then he could change that law. But that does not explain how he could command the stoning of certain sinners. Any law he makes, changeable or unchangeable is designed to bring about the best. So if the Israelites were better rid of these sinners so were we. If the temple can do without money it can at other times so the law would have to be reinstated. There is a sense then in which all his laws are permanent. They are permanent but if other permanent laws become more important than them they are just put to the background and not done away until they can be put back to the foreground again. Not one of the laws in the Torah are claimed to be changeable or even look like that kind of law. They are all different from the one about paying money to charity instead of the temple. God in the Law said you could murder a burglar who breaks into your house at night with impunity. Now is that a law that isn’t necessitated by God’s nature? It does no good at all. It clearly indicates that God does not accept the view that he has any laws that his nature does not require him to make but which he makes anyway. It is unnecessary and it is against the nature of a good God. Geisler is wrong.
The Law claims to be right. In other words, we are meant to see that it is right even if we don’t believe in God. God told the Hebrews that other nations would consider them to be the wisest nation on earth because of their Law (Deuteronomy 4:6,8).
At least Geisler would admit that stoning people to death is not necessarily incompatible with God. He would say that if God doesn’t allow it now, he still wants us to have the mindset that we would do it if he asked. We want to do it but it is because he asks us not to that we don’t. The fanaticism is still there.