Sketches on Atheism

The Argument from Consistency

IN GOD WE TRUSTThe god of the Pentateuch does not exist. This is not news. The entire premise of such a being is as Jeremy Bentham would have said, “Nonsense on stilts”[1]… and we should all be very, very pleased that such a creature does not exist. The god of the Pentateuch is a bad god, and we can prove that here by something I’m calling The Argument from Consistency, or perhaps more accurately, The Argument from Consistency in Justice

A story is recounted in Acts 5 where a couple in the early Christian commune, Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, were killed by Yhwh for the (victimless) crime of lying.

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

Three hours later, in verse 10, Sapphira is questioned by the apostles, repeats her husband’s lie about the money they had withheld, and is then also struck down dead.

The question then exists: Was Yhwh’s killing of Ananias and Sapphira consistent with the crime? Said in another way, was the killing fair justice from a god who is claimed to be the embodiment of justice and ultimate arbiter of truth? (See 2 Thessalonians 1:6, Jeremiah 17:10, Job 36:6, Acts 17:31, 1 John 1:9, Romans 3:23-26, Deuteronomy 32:4, Chronicles 19:7, Romans 9:14)

For justice to be meaningful (for it to be good) it has to be consistent. If we cannot rely on this consistency then we do not have “justice,” rather some haphazard, arbitrary dispensing of punishment according to the erratic emotional states of the judge and executioner.

If Yhwh was a consistent god, a dependable and just god, then we should expect him to repeat his behaviour. In matters of justice and punishment we should see no deviation in his actions, and so we would expect him to execute all people for the same “crime:” lying.

JUSTICESo, have we seen a consistency in this god’s behaviour before, and since? No. Abraham’s wife, Sarah, lied to Yhwh, but did he execute her? No. Abraham lied to Pharaoh and to Abimelech, but did Yhwh execute him? No. Jacob lied to Isaac, but did Yhwh execute him? No. Laban lied to Jacob, but did Yhwh execute him? No. The Potifar’s wife lied, but did Yhwh execute her? No. Rahab lied to everyone in Jericho, but did Yhwh execute him? No. Saul lied to David, but did Yhwh execute him? No. Hitler lied to Chamberlain, but did Yhwh execute him? No. George W. Bush lied to the world, but did Yhwh execute him? No. If I lie tomorrow, should I expect to be executed by Yhwh? Can I depend on Yhwh to behave in the same manner as he did with Ananias and Sapphira and strike me down dead? I doubt it, and this is an inconsistency in Yhwh’s behaviour.

It is erratic. It is untrustworthy. It is, therefore, not the stable and dependable execution of justice.

Demonstrably, Yhwh is an inconsistent god, and if he is inconsistent then he is not a just god, and if he is not a just god then he is not a being worthy of admiration, let alone veneration.

The corollary then follows:

  1. A good god is a just god
  2. For justice to be meaningful it has to be consistent.
  3. The killing of Ananias and Sapphira is not consistent with the crime
  4. Therefore, Yhwh is not a just god.
  5. Therefore, Yhwh is not good.

[1] Harrison, Ross (1995). “Jeremy Bentham”. In Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 85–88.

159 thoughts on “The Argument from Consistency

  1. BUT if god’s interventions were consistent, then they would be testable, in a scientific sense. And so god’s existence would be verifiable. If that were so, no faith would be required and the entire edifice of the church and its ministry would be unnecessary. That can’t be good for business, now can it?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Of course, it’s consistent. This isn’t about the lying, this is about withholding the money that belong to God! And of course, death is a fair punishment for this crime – haven’t you watched The Godfather?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. The real debate in Christian circles about Ananias and Sapphira is whether they were real Christians who would end up in heaven. The general view is that they were ‘saved’ and that this was temporal justice not eternal damnation.

    The story in the Bible that many Christians struggle with is Uzzah who was killed for touching the Ark of the Covenant to stop it falling off the ox cart being used to transport it. Most Christians regard that as harsh, but reconcile it with the idea that it breached God’s holiness.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I tried arguing once that it was the apostles who killed them, and every apologist vehemently denied that, which I found odd. Certainly it rings better to have men killing them than their god. But no, they were insistent: Yhwh did the killing.

      Poor Uzzah, but holy weapons are holy weapons, aren’t they? 😉


    • Is it not obvious, that the story of Uzzah is more debated in Christian circles, because it is more easily explained away through their knee jerk worship of might makes right moralism and rules are rules are rules sort of mentality?

      Ananias and Saphira story would be easily explained by the same sort of moralism, but it is also a nasty reminder of the communist nature of the earliest Christian society, wich fits even worse to their world view.

      Religions inform human worldviews, sometimes more and sometimes less, but they are not the worldviews of almost anybody in themselves. This is because they there are always also other factors that affect the world views of people. And no religion even attempts to impede every aspect of human life. The older the religion the less likely it is it has any usable commentation about stuff like gene manipulation, nuclear power, or chemical weapons. But such are the real moral issues as faced by humanity today. Starvation and overpopulation are problems to wich religions typically have only to offer ridiculously primitive solution models, like charity and restrictions on sexual behaviour, if they even try to suggest anything. Besides, no religions are uniformly consistent even whith themselves, lest they would not have so many interpretations and sects.


  4. Maybe there are worldly lies, that is to say excusable lies, and then there are damnable lies, the latter being those that are subject to, or worthy of, divine condemnation? I do not believe this, yet if wrong, then God must have been on O.J.s side in this regard I suppose?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I always thought that Acts 5 made much more sense if viewed in light of your stereotypical mafia movie: someone steals money from the crime boss (Peter). He calls them in, and instead of yelling at them, he gives them a speech about “Why would you do this to me when I’ve been so good to you?” After a short time, the boss calls in his henchmen to have them carry out and dispose of the bodies. Did he kill the thieves? No, they…. ‘just fell down at my feet.’

    Peter seems to have been the original Vito Corleone

    Liked by 3 people

      • Yeah, I saw that in your response to Peter after I posted my comment. And of course they believe it was God because 1) they love supernatural intervention unless they are called upon to show it as proof and 2) the alternative makes them sound too much like a criminal enterprise. They distance themselves from the killings of the Inquisition by blaming that on Catholicism instead of TruChristianity, but they would have a hard time justifying such behavior from the apostle who was “the rock” of their faith.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ha! I actually brought that one up to Wally Fry this morning re: the story of Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal. There’s no way in hell Elijah would have accepted “Well, Baal works in mysterious ways.” It’s a double standard, yet it still remains the trusty Christian standby.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: Quotable Quote. | vuurklip

  7. Still got to read your book. I can read before I go to sleep again but I don’t think it will put me in a nice sleepy place. So it’ll be my lunch hour treat when I go back to work next month. Anyway, if it’s not an evil god, it’s clearly a clusterfuck, impetuous and angry man-god screaming for some attention. Must be frustrating being invisible. Random killing for such a flawed being would be an obvious diversion.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. “No. We didn’t take the money! Really, we didn’t. We were on vacation that day. We got stuck in traffic. Our clothes didn’t come back from the cleaners and we couldn’t even leave the house. Our cat was in a tree and we spent that whole day trying to get it down. We SWEAR to YOU, we DIDN’T TAKE THE MONEY!!!!!” BANG! BANG! “Ugh! Ugh! Oh, you killed us! Oh, now we die! Ugh!” (The following scene was from Shakespeare’s unfinished play from 1602 entitled, “Don’t Steal From God, Cause He’ll Kill Ya For It”). $Amen$

    Liked by 1 person

  9. One thing that used to puzzle me from the Book of Samuel was why King David was not stoned to death for adultery and murder after his affair with Bethesda and the killing of her husband Uriah. It puzzled me why the Law of Moses seemed to no longer be an issue with God.

    It is only now that I am fully appreciating that the Law of Moses had not actually been written at that time. Thus we see the older books like Samuel have virtually no focus on ritual law, but the later rewrite in Chronicles suddenly discovers ritual law, and deftly excludes the whole Bethesda/Uriah narrative as it is somewhat inconvenient.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I’ve always found the argument from consistency to be a bit bland because the inconsistency is exactly what we’d expect from human authors at different times. Yes the message will change, because new teachings are made to address new problems. It’s no different than finding different legal principles in the Common Law.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. To sort of echo Sirius’ thoughts above, I would agree that I don’t know that consistency is necessarily important to justice. For instance I have a class policy for missed exams. If the rule is absolute that of course I apply it consistently and there is a certain safety from the students in that, but that doesn’t mean the policy is just. It assumes perhaps that I thought of all possible situations that might arise such that the policy is always followable. But what if something happens that doesn’t fit my pre-conceived notions? It would perhaps not be just to apply the policy in that circumstance, it would also not necessarily be just to not make changes to my policy to account for what I have newly learned. So I guess I expect ideas of justice to evolve and change. What that says about God though is that if he is changing his views on what justice is, that he is fallible and not perfect. That to me is the more direct contradiction to what God is. When he changes what is considered just and unjust then we see a person who just like the rest of us is struggling to determine what is right and wrong. How can such a being be a moral guide if he doesn’t know himself what crimes are and how they should be punished?

    Liked by 1 person

    • True, following your class example, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, it’s unjust, but as the god God is the arbiter of truth then we’d have to argue that he get’s to say what is just. Goes with the territory. But that aside, whatever the law is, the treatment of that law has to be consistent or else no one could rely on it. This then hits at your second point, being an erratic god, and therefore not worthy of admiration. That was my point, too. As I said to Siri, I wanted to call this The Argument from Justice, but that title is already taken.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I understand what you are saying now. Both sides are important. If he is the absolute authority and perfect than he must be consistent. He is not consistent, thus he is not the absolute authority. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s it. Of course, the god God doesn’t have to be just, consistent, or anything, really. But, and its a big but, if the theist wants to attach the words “maximally good” to the god God then they have to deal with matters of justice and consistency.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Agreed! When many theists say you can’t disprove God I always find that to be a bit of a fallacy, because to me you have to define what God is. Once people start doing that they get into trouble. Unless they simply say that there is a God but we have no idea what the true nature of God is, all other descriptions according to the words written down in holy books can be quite easily disproved.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. There are several possibilities here (this ist might not be exhaustive, I did not put much effort into it):

    a) This god is not good (not a new idea, that is what the gnostics always said: the world was created by an evil god (Jaldabaoth or whoever). Lets form a Neo-Gnostic church.
    b) God is good, just and consistent, but the Ananias story is a fake, its apocryphal (corollary: the bible is at least partially wrong).
    c) God is good and just, but your concept of justice is wrong (whatever god does is just per definition, since god is the only standard for justice), so kneel down and repent.
    d) There is no god and the whole thing is nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. What’s the point of lying to God? Surely even as infants everyone has it pounded into them that God is the Ultimate Know-all?

    Methinks ’tis all a rip-off on the part of them disciples, a wee blackmail to extort more money. Someone should challenge them on it.

    And the beat goes on … la la la la laaaaaa … and the beat goes onnnnnn …

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I’ve just figured the Ultimate Lost Cause—discussing religion with the religious.

    Far better to give the ‘jarring sects’ oodles of rum, baseball bats, and put ’em in a locked hall. Truth will out …

    Liked by 1 person

  15. if this god was consistent, one would hope that there would be a lot of dead priests and pastors. I’m waiting for a lovely Roman Catholic, NC Catz, to offer me his excuse why this doesn’t happen. He is one of the best examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect I’ve yet found.


  16. I occasionally browse Eliza’s site other at holdingforhisword. According to her Here
    , Billy Graham is headed for hell and will join Mother Teresa, CS Lewis, Luther, Calvin and Augustine there. So I suspect she would see Ananias and Sapphira. Well it will be a crowded place hell. But at there should be plenty of room in heaven probably only a few dozen people would meet her standard.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. “Demonstrably, Yhwh is an inconsistent god, and if he is inconsistent then he is not a just god, and if he is not a just god then he is not a being worthy of admiration, let alone veneration.”

    Hear, hear. You know, asking for consistency is not asking for much, especially from a supposed supreme being. TBH, some people are so desperate to secure a place in the heavenlies, they’re willing to settle for a scoundrel.

    Liked by 1 person

      • To cowards at least. The weak worship displays and imitations of power. But I admit that these people are in a sense taught to be cowards from early on in this case. And worship might makes right moralism, even though they might be naturally inclined to be very brave about other things in their lives. It is a part of why Christianity is one of those religions that have survived the time so far, as it has these succesfull properties, to stop people from looking behind the curtain, though the curtain itself should tell us something vital about the plausibility of what is behind it…

        I wrote a post about Ananias and Saphira, way back. I still think it was about the money why they were killed, not so much the lying. Though, that does not actually change the inconsistensy. However, there is a certain consistency in the Bible about this, as there is the previous case of people being killed by the god of the Hebrews for stealing from the loot obtained by raiding and pillaging during the genoside as ordered by said god from the portion of loot preserved for this god. What the god planned to do with his portion is unclear, but as you can observe by following many a preacher today, god needs, or maybe just wants your money.

        But an evil god may be as inconsistent as it wishes and still expect to be worshipped as a benevolent god by the adherents who expect others to be punished for ever and themselves to be rewarded for their faith for ever. Why would any moral person accept such a dichtomy as a system put up by an actually benevolent entity? It is an utterly self serving belief system. The only explanation is that most religious people have never even as much as stopped to ponder upon the question.

        If Ananias and his wife ended up in them heavens it was no punishment at all rather a reward, and if they ended up in eternal torment, that is totally out of proportion to their crime of being humans as they alledgedly were created as such, or even just for lying. If they simply siezed to exist, it was just mere murder. How could they have expected to be punished so severely for such a transgression? Because they should have known god kills outright those who take from his assigned loot?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I still think it was about the money why they were killed, not so much the lying.

        Me too, but no apologist appears willing to admit that.

        But an evil god may be as inconsistent as it wishes and still expect to be worshipped as a benevolent god by the adherents who expect others to be punished for ever and themselves to be rewarded for their faith for ever.

        This is true, but I’d go even further. A wicked god would take great pleasure in men believing, erroneously, in a Good Father. If men’s minds are distracted then they are not occupying their time with thoughts of rebellion again Creation. There is a certain genius in having men inflict wounds on themselves.

        And yes, the punishment does not match the “crime,” a victimless crime. There is no justice in this action.


  18. Reblogged this on Mass Delusions a.k.a. Magical & Religious Woo-Bullshit Thinking and commented:
    This blog post, reblogged from a blog called The Superstitious Naked Ape, is a good example of how capricious, evil, malicious, rancorous, malevolent, unjust, partial – you name it – the imaginary friend up in the sky, with omnipotent and omniscient powers, is. An imaginary friend and crackpot who calls himself I am that I am (Exodus 3:14), but is called God Almighty by his worshippers.

    The author of the reblogged post, John Zande, also demonstrates how inconsistent this Almighty God is, especially when it comes to punishing people committing sins.

    John Zande starts his analysis by retelling a story in Acts 5 about a couple in the early Christian commune, Ananias and his wife, Sapphira.

    Both Ananias and Sapphira were killed by God for not telling the truth about what happened to some money they had had at their disposal.

    Because Ananias and his wife were dishonest, God decided to kill them. Not only does God hate sins; he hates sinners as well, maybe even more than the sins.

    This story in Acts 5 reminds me of what can be read in 2 Kings 2:23-24:

    And [God’s beloved prophet Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

    Those two verses bring up the question of how a prophet chosen by God Himself is allowed, by that same God, to call a deadly curse down upon a group of kids for taunting him about something as insignificant as baldness.

    And maybe worst of all, Almighty God consents, without hesitating the least, to his prophet’s wish and uses/forces two she bears to accomplish the killing.

    Anyhow, this is not the first time God kills children for misbehaving.

    Here are four more examples:

    #1: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (demanding that children who refuse to obey their parents must be executed).

    If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

    #2: Exodus 21:15

    He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

    #3. Exodus 21:17

    He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

    #4. Proverbs 30:17

    Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens and eaten by eagles.The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.

    IMHO it’s one of life’s biggest riddles how on Earth there can be people who still worship such an evil, vengeful and inequitable God, who at the same time is so full of inconsistencies and biased partiality.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. So after all, the God you believe in is kind of abusive father, who with his inconsistent behavior confuses his followers. Then these followers out of confusion and out of desire be loved and protected by this God, make themself inconsistent acts, many times criminal against the human morality, which can be derived from the self evident truth. The examples are inhuman extreme acts , justified by faith in God-the only God, like the Christian inquisition, or the Muslim extremity at present. Even ideologies that are based on totalitarian denial of Gods existence, when the denial becomes a political activism (like in Communism or Nazism ) the result is even biger violation of human dignity and human rights.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Eugen

      Great to hear from you here. First up, no: I don’t actually believe in this god, or any god for that matter, although I do have a fondness for Veles. Pointing out the inconsistencies in god-belief (especially in the Abrahamic religions) is just a task, although I’ll admit I’ve taken that task to the extreme with TOOAIN. A purposeful exercise in the absurd, let’s just say.

      I have to disagree with you, though, regarding Communism and Nazism. The Nazi’s were as Christian as they come. Gott mit uns (God with us) was the seal on most pieces of equipment, and Himmler himself wrote of the three questions an SS soldier must ask himself:

      “What is your oath ?” – “I vow to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and chancellor of the German Reich loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to the leaders that you set for me, absolute allegiance until death. So help me God !”

      “So you believe in a God ?” – “Yes, I believe in a Lord God.”

      “What do you think about a man who does not believe in a God ?” – “I think he is overbearing, megalomaniac and foolish; he is not one of us.”

      Equating Communism with atheism is just silly. The anti-religious fervor of the Bolsheviks was less ideological than political, a rebellion again church and state that were so closely intertwined in late 19th Century Russia that it had to be cut out of the body politic, they believed, much like a cancer is removed from a physical body.


      • You are probably right about Nazism. They needed strong faith to be capable to commit all those crimes. After all they succeeded to recruit the main stream of German society for their criminal case. I wonder how do you see their idolatry toward Hitler. Wasn’t it kind of substitute to belief in God?
        As to the communists and especially Stalin, their anti religion stand came out of faith in some substitute in Devine, dialectics, historical determinism, pseudoscientific theories, etc. This is also some kind of monotheism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Eugen

        Stalin was nuts, a psychopathic dictator. It’s impossible to equate the ideals of the communist revolution with his actions. That is to say, the 20th century Russian experiment with communism. The early Christian church was, after all, communist. It is not a contemporary idea.

        As for Hitler, I’d say personality cults are pivotal in most, if not all, mass sociopolitical adventures.


    • I mean really!

      Who knows what he is thinking? And who around here knows why it is that no permission is asked of us before what he chooses to do a thing or why he chooses to not to do a thing, or why he allows what he allows, or why he is not on our timetable, past -present-or future. Why do some experience his healing grace. Why are some chosen and some not? Why do some get it and some do not? And why are some prayers answered and some are not. WHY! WHY! WHY!

      Inconstant? Your bullshit runnith over. You do not know why. You do not get it. You are not one of the chosen. Your prayers have never been answered. You do not know why and your ass is flapping in the wind.


      • Bobbie you ask who knows what he is thinking and shortly after go on to say some are not chosen, how do you know? And if for argument’s sake we allowed this god of yours to be real and that he created all there is, how could he chose? What right would s/h/it have to chose?
        Why would this god not be responsible for the good and for the bad, whatever those mean?
        And later on in this thread you ask people how do they know what god’s justice is? If your approach is to say what some words mean in ordinary usage is different from their meaning when used in a religious sense, then no discussion can be had with you for we simply would not know what you are talking about.
        So, finally, can you answer John’s question? How are we to act in presence of a being that is fickle, that punishes or rewards according to its whims and at the same time, its minions tells us it is an all just and all merciful being? How are we to understand this terms?


      • “Who knows what he is thinking? And who around here knows why it is that no permission is asked of us before what he chooses to do a thing or why he chooses to not to do a thing, or why he allows what he allows, or why he is not on our timetable, past -present-or future.”

        If this is the case, then Yahweh is unknowable. You don’t get to claim this, and then wheel around and say you know that he is perfectly just, or that he’s a Republican, or that his opinions somehow always happen to match yours. If we can’t know why he chooses to do a thing or not do a thing, we can’t claim he does so out of perfect justice. If we don’t know why he allows what he allows, we can’t call our ignorance justice.

        On the other hand, Yahweh is a character in a book; we can judge his actions as portrayed, the same way we can decide if Lord Voldemort is a hero or a villain as portrayed in the Harry Potter books.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Crazy shit? Maybe. Better question? Hardly. Maybe your the one that needs more fiber since I doubt God takes a daily shit.


      • Oh, he does. He told me so. And it would be terrible to doubt me. My religious belief about god’s bowel’s is sacred. God’s bowels are far more important than you. They’re tax exempt, are your bowels? Praise be America! Praise be guns! And praise be the holy bowels! $Amen$


      • I’m not drunk! How dare you! I’m high on God’s love! You heathens are all the same! Mock those you don’t understand. Holy SHIT!!!! I just said Holy Shit!!!!! Shit!!! What does that mean about an IDIOT without a sense of humor? NOOOOOOO!!!!!! Idiots without humor are a sign of the apocalypse! The end of days are nigh! HELP!!!!


      • BTW, here’s dialog from a third grader, you stupid mother fucker, “What? Dis crazy guy wants to touch my penis! He bad! I don’t want ’em to touch my penis! He look crazy, momma? JOHN, is it OK on yer blog fer a gay asshole to touch the penis of a third grader? WHY, OH WHY, does this scary person want to touch my third grade pee-pee? HELP, a crazy, gay, pedophile wants me to suck his pee-pee!!!! HELP!!!!!” Shall we continue, you child raping mother fucker?


      • If not drunk maybe you are one to kill one that has a truth? Do you think the Earth revolves around the Sun?

        I have a sense of humor. The best Joke ever told, I laughed my ass off!!!!!

        “A woman gets on a bus with her baby. The bus driver says: ”Ugh, that’s the ugliest baby I’ve ever seen!” The woman walks to the rear of the bus and sits down, fuming. She says to a man next to her: ”The driver just insulted me!” The man says: ”You go up there and tell him off. Go on, I’ll hold your monkey for you.”


      • BTW, I’m only 16 years old. Thus, I;m reporting you to WP as a child stalker. Yeah, I know. You think this won’t matter, but it will, because I’m not lying, and those pics you sent to me, WOW, nasty! are not gonna bode well in your defense. Get ready, daddy. I’m reporting you now. I’ve your IP address, AND, amazingly, the pics I received just now came from it. YIKES!!!! You gonna have some splannin’ ta do, Lucy!!!! Hee Haw!!!!!! Now, this is funny.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The Catholic priest thing? I agree with you. Men are susceptible to Satan. Beware. No one is immune and we will all be judged in the end.


    • Bobbie! It’s been far too long. How have you been, my mischievous monkey?

      Why does God have to be consistent? Did you read the article? Here, I’ll paste the applicable section:

      “For justice to be meaningful (for it to be good) it has to be consistent. If we cannot rely on this consistency then we do not have “justice,” rather some haphazard, arbitrary dispensing of punishment according to the erratic emotional states of the judge and executioner.”


      • Ahhhhh. Finally someone with half a brain…

        Ever heard of “Judicial discretion”?

        Who ever said, “For justice to be meaningful (for it to be good) it has to be consistent.” You?


      • Hey, John. Sorry I’m being a 16 year old dick to Bobbie, but, I am only 16, and, I do know how to manipulate IP addresses, and, Bobbie was nasty to me, SO, I’m fucking with him in a way the authorities will think is just peachy. They’ll think they’ve capture a huge child porn dude. Bobbie’s computer will soon be filled with CRAZY pics of CRAZY shit. Bobbie was nice, for a one-nighter, but he dumped me, and at 16, that hurts. So, I’m gettin’ revenge. 🙂 I’m a 16 year old basterd when it comes to that. He doesn’t believe me right now, but, come Wed or Thurs, he will. KNOCK! KNOCK! “Hello, Bobbie, this is the FBI. We have reason to believe you’re involved in child porn.” HEE HAW!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • The subject is God’s justice and your opinion that he is inconstant. Further, why is it that he does what he does and why we don’t always understand it, thinking it is inconstant.

        So, you tell me, how is that you know, or presume to know, why he chooses to do what he does, and when he decides to move or not to move. Why must God fit your personal construed conception of him.


      • No, the subject is justice. Period. There is no his justice, her justice, their justice. There’s just justice, and for it to meaningful it has to be consistent. For justice to be meaningful it has to be reliable, and that means a repeatable pattern.


      • Again. Says who?

        Why must it be your interpretation and not mine?

        God will intervene in his time, to deal with injustices or sin for the benefit of mankind and to further His purposes. He will not be subject to your timetable and ideas what he should do, or is logical in your mind. What happened, and was recorded in the pas, is not the judgment passed on the majority of people now in this age for the purpose of eternal salvation.

        The final judgment will occur later. Jude tells us that “the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints to execute judgment on all” (verses 14-15).

        You crave a repeatable pattern but with God he is Judge and Executioner and we have no appeal. That’s the way it is even though it breaks your heart. YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT TO HIS WILL. That is what he demands and to refuse it is to forever live in the realm of the dead and unknowing.


      • Why must it be your interpretation and not mine?

        OK, I asked you to demonstrate how justice could be meaningful without it being consistent.

        If you can do that then we can move on.


      • To clarify your question…Who’s justice?

        Mine, yours, the US Supreme Court, the Russian courts, the Italian Courts, or Gods court?

        I mean, your post is ragging on your perceived inconsistency with your view of Gods justice, right? All of the aforementioned entities have historical inconsistencies.

        So, to save us time and energy let us rephrase your question by adding the word “Gods”.

        “OK, I asked you to demonstrate how Gods justice could be meaningful without it being consistent.

        If you can do that then we can move on. ”

        So, we can indeed move on when you can explain to me how you, john zande, presume to ask the almighty why he does what he does.

        And I’m sure I do not have to remind you that one of the most powerful analogies in the Bible regarding our transformation and sanctification in the Lord has to be the analogy of the potter and the clay. The Bible says that God is the Potter and we are the clay.


      • And again, there is no his justice, her justice, or their justice. There is just “Justice.” We’re not even talking about whether something is fair or not. That’s another conversation. What we’re talking about here is the very notion of Justice… and the bible says Yhwh is the embodiment of justice (See 2 Thessalonians 1:6, Jeremiah 17:10, Job 36:6, Acts 17:31, 1 John 1:9, Romans 3:23-26, Deuteronomy 32:4, Chronicles 19:7, Romans 9:14). So, for justice to be meaningful it has to be consistent. People have to be able to rely on this consistency so as to know where the behavioural boundaries are. And here’s an example:

        Welcome to Judge Winterbottom’s Court.

        Person A does Action X, is tried, and Judge Winterbottom sentences him to 10 years gaol.
        Person B does Action X, is tried, and Judge Winterbottom imposes no gaol time.
        Now, Person C does Action X and finds himself standing before Judge Winterbottom… What punishment would an observer think Judge Winterbottom will impose?

        Answer: The observer cannot know because Judge Winterbottom has not been consistent. In Judge Winterbottom’s court we do not have justice, rather the haphazard, arbitrary dispensing of punishment according to the erratic emotional states of the judge.

        So, Bobbie, if you disagree with this then I’m open to you demonstrating how justice could be meaningful without it being consistent.

        Of course, you could always say “Yhwh is not a just god,” and this conversation simply ends.


      • In your three-person analogy, all committing the same crime and all getting different sentences, is consistent with current reality. Person 1 may be a repeat offender, Person 2 may have committed his first offense and Person 3 a women, or whatever.

        I am pretty sure human Judges here are given sentencing guidelines, or parameters and at times people will plead no-contest and “throw” themselves to the mercy of the court. There are also plea-bargains where the accused can plead guilty and receive a lighter sentence.

        As far as Yahweh, from what I read, i think he is fair and just.

        But you don’t even believe Yahweh exists, so all your outrage at him rings hollow. It’s a bit like someone complaining about Santa Claus giving the rich kids better presents. A nonexistent being can’t do anything! But even under your own standards, you would not be able to accuse God of injustice since atheism, with evolution at the core of its belief system and its ‘survival of the fittest’ mantra, cannot provide an objective standard of morality to ground your own accusations on. (sorry, going off topic)

        So, I demonstrated above how justice could be meaningful without it being consistent, why a human Judge would give all three different sentences and how three people, all committing the same crime might all get different sentences. 1) P1 pleads no-contest, the Judge feels P1’s remorse and Judges accordingly, 2) P2 pleads guilty in exchange for a set, often lower, sentence, 3) P3 goes to trial and might get a longer sentence.

        There are also major inconsistencies when comparing the judicial system of say, the USA and Saudi Arabia.

        Yahweh’s constancy should be a terror to the wicked, those who oppose him, break his laws, live without any thought of him, and who seek, not his glory but their own. His standards, holiness, ,anger against evil doers and judgment of sinners, does not change.

        I asked a friend what he thought because he knows more than me. He asked me to read James 4. “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. (James 4:12) He also said many unbelievers are looking at Scripture through a muddled lens, that they so want to find inconsistencies and contradictions that they reinterpret Scripture to have meanings that are just not there, or they have an expectation of what God should or should not do or how he should or should not act.


      • It’s a bit like someone complaining about Santa Claus giving the rich kids better presents.

        Oh, I like that. Mind if i steal it?

        (And Persons A, B, and C are equal in every way)


  20. I judge you. you sexy beast! I judge you to b a a man this boy child loves, in a naked, inappropriate sort of way. Hey! Did you just fart? That is a turn off to my 16 year old self. BTW, when the authorities seize your computer, and they will, though you doubt it, remember me. Remember the love we shared under the sweet trees in your yard. Me, a 16 year old child, and you, a man of experience, wisdom ,and smart-ass humor. Yeah. You think it ain’t coming. But it is.. Your IP address just got flooded with child porn. Lord. life sucks. It’ll take a few days, but the authorities are comin’ lover. Fuck with a wise-ass 16 year old, and this is the fun you get. Give it 4 or 5 days, but the knock on yer door is comin’. Give ’em yer computer now. What? You can’t find what I sent to your computer? That’s OK, the authorities will. Trust me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I know you hate people like this commenting on your blog John. It starts out innocent enough, then when Truth smacks them upside the head the vileness comes out. Hate. Vitriol. Death threats. Thank God I live in America where hate speech and intolerance is illegal.


      • I love you too dickhead, but in a different sort of way. I don’t want to suck your hairy balls, I want to baptize you and cast the demonic demons from your soul. And no, the authorities are not here yet you over-weight out-of-shape stinking pile of shit of a man, man. 🙂


      • This is the most fun I’ve had EVER on a blog. Thanks. And, BtW, I ain’t kiddin’. I gots yer IP address and, in a few hours, you won’t think this is funny any more. Hee Haw!!! Knock! Knock! Police are comin’ fer Bobbie!!! Fish ALWAYS bite my lure.


  21. John, if you want to delete all this crap you have my permission, like you really need it… I know I would, it kind of marginalizes the message you are trying to spread. The monkey in me kind of got a little carried away but a dickhead idiot is a dickhead idiot all day long and everyone knows it. (so sad for the dickhead idiot who has no clue)


    • Nah, I don’t censor. Are you though saying Inspired has baffled you? That’s impressive, because you’ve had people on this blog climbing trees trying to figure you out… Which I always found impressive 😉


      • Inspired is, judging from my interaction with him, broken. There is always pain associated with hateful lashing. In my humble existence I have witnessed and lived among many different beliefs. A small uneducated person may think its the Jews, Christians or Muslims, but there are many, many more.

        While I monkey around searching for the Truth I want to know real.

        Real to me is that, “this is what I know” and although I will tell you, “this is what I know”, I also love you even if you reject what “I tell you I know”.

        Hate will destroy us. Love is are only hope. Love comes in many colors, shapes, and sizes.


      • Liberal internet satire is a bullshit excuse in this case.

        The hate he has for spiritual beings of love is inexcusable.

        How can anyone defend it? Come on John, if the monkey on your back is a hater then call him a hater. The monkey is what the monkey says.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. “bobbierileyjr says:
    October 18, 2015 at 1:21 am

    I love you too dickhead, but in a different sort of way. I don’t want to suck your hairy balls, I want to baptize you and cast the demonic demons from your soul. And no, the authorities are not here yet you over-weight out-of-shape stinking pile of shit of a man, man. :)”
    Bobbie, has Jesus heard your foul mouth and your hate-filled anger? Shame on you. Has the knock come yet on yer door? It will. Your swearing and anger here will solidify the charges against you. You were a beautiful lover, but, me being 16, I think the authorities may see it differently. Sorry you’re so angry, lover. You were my first, and, for a Jesus lover, one hell of a gay stud. Thanks. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • It is tit for tat my friend. Jesus eat with sinners, and why? Do you want a Bible Lesson?

      Foul-mouth? No. I meet you at your level. I come to you. I respond to you.

      Hate? NO. I will not waver and I will not go down without praying you come to the one who sends me.

      I feel your pain brother and my jest with you is to take some of that pain away from you, if I can, I would eat all your pain and you would emerge on the other side a glorious wholly lovely human.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s