A response to a particularly clueless Christian in our community

There's a man in my community, one Stanley Jesik, who is Poe-like in his complete ignorance of the bible and his faith. His latest letter, published on Monday, holds the assertion that there is no violence or hate in the bible, and ends with the deranged proclamation that it's those anti-religionists who are ruining it for everyone else. Yeah, those damn atheists, what with their... what, 7% of the population? If that? Fuckin' twit.

Anyway, my response is as follows. Not sure if it will be printed as it's a bit on the long side, but that's what this blog is for. Enjoy.


"If I didn't know any better I'd swear Mr. Jesik was pulling our legs. There's no hate or violence in the bible? This is roughly akin to saying there's no sand in the desert, or water in the Atlantic. It's fractal wrongness; wrong on every conceivable level, and even levels beyond conception.

To start with, we have the story of Jesus. Ignoring the hideous idea that the blood sacrifice of an innocent is the only thing with which we can be "saved" from the great evil of... being born, we have his betrayal, torture, and execution, described in lurid, loving detail. And then Judas hangs himself. Jesus gets better; not so much for Judas.

And then we have gentle Jesus meek and mild's major contribution to culling thoughtcrime: hell. Because what better way to show how non-violent and non-hateful you are than threatening eternal torture for the sin of a differing opinion. Swell guy, Jesus.

How about Noah and his family? (Old testament, but mentioned several times in the new as having happened, so I'm counting it.) Yeah, great for them, what with the incest and all -- perhaps not violent, but ew all the same -- but I would ask how it turned out for every other being on the planet except for the lucky few who hitched a ride on the Ark. Oh, that's right, they were drowned for no reason other than god's lack of foresight. Apparently omniscience ain't all it's cracked up to be.

I'm just getting started. Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." No problem whatsoever with the kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out philosophy of the old testament. Jesus saves!

Or how about Mark 6:11, in which Jesus explicitly says that anyone who ignores his teachings will suffer far worse than the denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? This, clearly, is the wisdom of a benevolent man; "Open your arms to my followers or I will torture you."

And then there's Romans 1:31-1:32, in which it is said that homosexuals are "worthy of death;" and Colossians 1:20, in which god is positively giddy about the blood sacrifice of the cross; and, well, Revelations, all of it, which reads like a particularly pretentious snuff film. Nope, no violence or hate in there; having the whole of the earth set ablaze, and the survivors stabbed, mauled, starved and the like is A-OK according to Mr. Jesik.

One can draw several conclusions from Mr. Jesik's letter. Perhaps the most charitable is that he's simply naive, though that would seem to fly in the face of his chastising Mr. Lane for his "lack of knowledge." Another, less charitable interpretation is that Mr. Jesik is a Liar for Jesus; he knows it's all a sham, he knows it's revolting, and he must lie to make it seem more palatable both to himself and to the masses.

Or, perhaps even more disgustingly, he views violence against non-believers to be perfectly justified. And yet the atheists are the immoral monsters. It really makes one think -- well, those of us capable of thinking, anyway"