God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction

(Some notes after six chapters...I've since finished the book on Feb. 15)

>>The Good...
I think that Barker's 9-page opening remarks were damn near perfect, every word, every letter. Good stuff.

The book is broken down into quite a few chapters (such as Unforgiving, Homophobic, & Bloodthirsty ), each featuring some unpleasant aspect of God and/or his followers (such as requesting God's bloody wrath upon their enemies).

>>The Bad...
Don't read before bedtime. It's not very pleasant. Unless, of course, the thought of blood and death of Biblical proportions will help you sleep better.

Some of Barker's headings to the extracts are either incorrect or, in my opinion, don't accurately reflect what follows. Example, p. 60:
(Heading) Don't eat an animal that hasn't been killed
(Extract) "Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God."
There were a couple of others. It's not that big a deal if you're reading carefully, or skipping the headings.

>>The Sad...
The fact that people really read this junk (the actual scriptures, not this book) and think it's real... is freakin' sad... and SCARY! Some people break away, such as Dan Barker, but most people don't have the ability, the knowledge, or the inclination to do this.

Also sad is the fact that we even need to have this discussion in the 21st Century on whether or not the god of the Bible is real. If you want to believe there is some cosmic creator, fine; but for "God's sake" throw out the dangerous and hurtful dogma and put the Abrahamic based religions where they belong, in the trash-bin of ideas that have outlived their time. It's just the crazy scribblings and beliefs of our ancient ancestors.

>>An Observation...
So as I read this book I can't help but ask myself, considering how much this (alleged) God (allegedly) involved itself in human affairs in Biblical times, where did it go? Why doesn't it show itself to all of humanity in no uncertain terms in this modern scientific age? Why doesn't it, for instance, speak to EVERYONE at the same time, regardless of language and hearing ability?
Uh, let me think about this... thinking... still thinking... Okay, arrived at conclusion. Because it doesn't exist. Never did.

February 15, 2016
Over the last two days I did quite a bit of reading to finish this up. Although I read all of Barker's own words (mostly chapter introductions), I skipped a page here and there of the Bible verses as it was overkill. Once you've read 2 or 3 pages of God's destructiveness and cruelty, you don't have to keep going, unless you're into that sort of thing. I did notice one quote that was butchered towards the end, see pp. 275-276 (it doesn't make sense as written and I looked it up to confirm this). I think the book could have contained more context for many of the quotes, but still, the cumulative effect is that this God character was out of control. Also, some of the verses were supposed to be direct quotes from God, while others seemed to be people speaking for God of their own accord (playing the God angle). Perhaps these should have been separated from the verses that were supposed to be quoting God directly. If this God was real and did even half the things suggested in this book, it's amazing that anyone ever left their living quarters. You'd think that everyone would try and hide to avoid being slain in one form or another. And if God destroyed practically everyone in the flood because he was unhappy with humanity, well, it doesn't seem that Round 2 went any better. I'm giving this book 4-stars, but 3.5 wouldn't be far off the mark, too.

Unbelievable. So glad all this didn't happen. But this fictional character did exist in the minds and hearts of people for so long. Way too long. The book is shock and awe at what the bible contains. Thank goodness for cherry picking and thank goodness for the enlightenment because otherwise we might still be all to familiar firsthand with this character of fiction.

Bible quote after bible quote made up the vast majority of this book. Such a waste of space. There was very little commentary or explanation for this book of biblical verses. I had expected more from Dan Barker. Hey Dan, could you or Dawkins refund my money?

I gave it 5 stars because anyone would know that this book is not the way God was meant to be understood. But what it does underscore is just how much of the Word has been altered by evil mankind in order to give attributes of the Devil to God. Remember God gave the Earth to the Devil to move around on and to be king of. Which in Gods mind was a little pathetic place to provide such a miserable character. The Devil offered Jesus the World, not the other way around. The Earth is the domain of the Devil and his evil sidekick mankind. God offers salvation to the evil Man, but gives none to Satan. So far it seems that the Satan is winning the Soul of Man. But God does not need all of Man, just the ones that deserve salvation. If this book has done anything for me, it shows what kind of SUCKER man has been for the Satan , who is really, in truth, his GOD. So this book is all about the deception of MAN by the SATAN. It only shows just how far Man has fallen. Can Man be redeemed? I say no, to Hell with the whole thing. But God tells me if one can be saved then it is all worth it. Please Satan allow your Comment Demons to do their worst because I wear the protection of the true GOD.

Because of the author(s) I expected more writing. This is an exhaustive list of all the scriptures that show what kind of god we're dealing with here. And if you turn your nose up against Islam, brace yourself. You will be shocked at what our big benevolent guy-in-the-sky has been up to these past centuries.

I am a former Christian, who spent years and years defending the faith, all the while never really having read the whole Bible. I even went to Bible college! I skimmed it in order to fudge that I had read it in its entirety, just so I could pass the "OT and NT 101" classes. For most devout Christians, the Bible is regarded as a magical book, never to be questioned because it is divinely inspired. I have lots of family and friends who read the Bible all the time, even the ugly parts, and still are in love with Jesus and "growing in the Lord." They love their Lee Strobels, Ray Comforts, Josh McDowells and Ken Hams, and hate science and research that interferes with their faith. They would deny that they are superstitious and fearful, but what else could it be? I get that their faith is comforting to them, and they are good and loving people, but I just want the truth and I'm not afraid to seek it. I have dedicated the last eight or so years to really getting to know the Bible, especially its history, and boy have I learned stuff that I never heard about in church or in Bible college. Barker's book is one of many that I have read by former Christians who have actually dug in and researched and learned the reality of this book that is worshiped the world over. As the author says, the best-selling book of all time speaks for itself, so you really don't need all the extra scholarship to know that there's really so much wrong with using it as the source of all truth. But people are set in their ways and the rest of us just have to put up with their stubbornness. When you see it for what it really is ("writers were projecting their biological feelings of sexual insecurity onto their culturally derived deity, a male god" for starters...) it makes so much sense! When they are questioned about the validity of scripture or the "bad stuff" in the Bible, Christians will say "Jesus came to change that" or "God works in mysterious ways," etc. Barker deftly addresses the use of the "New Testament cure-all" in the chapter entitled "What About Jesus?" He doesn't even have to go into the shady history of the NT and all the contradictions therein. He just lets it speak for itself. It's an excruciating experience to change one's belief system, and I do not intend to force anyone to abandon their faith (my darker nature is to force-feed this book to my devout family members), but once you're out and see things for what they really are, there's no going back. I thank Dan Barker and others who have made that journey, for sharing their knowledge and helping to take the blinders off of so many. Wonderful book and bravo!

XXXXX

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive [revengeful], bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic [hatred of women], [orientation-phobic], racist, infanticidal [baby destroyer], genocidal [nation destroyer], filicidal [parent destroying his/her child], pestilential [causing pestilence], megalomaniacal [delusional], sadomasochistic [pleasure from pain], capriciously [erratic] malevolent [wishing harm to others] bully.”

The above sentence from Richard Dawkins’ phenomenal bestseller “The God Delusion” is what this book by Dan Barker is based on. Barker was an evangelical minister for nineteen years before he became an atheist. He is co-president of the “Freedom from Religion Foundation.”

What this book does is to provide evidence for the correctness of the statement that Dawkins wrote in his bestseller.

How does it do this? By taking each character trait mentioned in Dawkins’ statement above and making it a chapter. Thus, there are nineteen chapters. So, for example, the first chapter is entitled “Jealous and proud of It,” the ninth chapter is entitled “Misogynistic,” and the last chapter is entitled “Bully.”

Then, what Barker has done is take verses from the Old Testament (OT) that contain the character trait mentioned in the chapter title. This book contains verses from all thirty-nine books of the OT and there are more than fifteen hundred “horrific” verses presented.

I know! I know! Reading biblical verse can be quite tedious, especially for long passages. Barker has made this task much easier by boldfacing the relevant words in each verse. What I did when reading these verses was to scan for the boldface and I came back later for the context.

Throughout each chapter, the author adds his own personal remarks which, personally, I found VERY interesting.

Beyond the nineteen chapters which make up the first part of this book is a second part that expands Dawkins’ list. The last chapter of this second part extends the list into the New Testament.

Finally, the Foreword is by the man responsible for the character trait list that makes up the first part of this book: Richard Dawkins. It’s brief but VERY good. I like when Dawkins asks:

“Couldn’t the [theist] compile a counter to my damning litany?” The theist might say,

“The God of the Old Testament is magnanimous, generous, encouraging, forgiving, charitable, loving, friendly, good-humoured, supportive of women, of [those of different orientation], of children, freedom-loving, open-minded, broad-minded, non-violent.”

Dawkins says,

“Go on. Try and find those nice verses. Do your best. You think you’ll succeed? Want [to] bet?

In conclusion, all I can say after reading this book that is a passionate defense of REASON:

“Thank God, He’s not real!”

(First published 2016; foreword (VIII-X); introduction; 2 parts or 28 chapters; afterword; main narrative 305 pages; acknowledgements; credits; bibliography; index)

<<Stephen PLETKO, London, Ontario, Canada>>

XXXXX

This is one of the most informative books on religion I've come across. I was raised in a liberal Jewish household, so outside of observing the main holidays, there wasn't too much bible talk.I tried reading it, but it was so tedious I couldn't get past Genesis. Thank goodness Mr. Barker took the time to break it all down for me and explain line by line what the authors of the bible were saying. I've been an atheist for most of my 45 years. Now I'm becoming the worst nightmare for the Judeo-Christian world....an 'informed atheist'.

I always knew that the god of Abraham was a vengeful bloke, but I never knew how despicable he really is. As much as I enjoyed listening to this effort, I came away with a sense of dread....dread of the knowledge that I inhabit a world in which a good portion of it's population takes the bible seriously.

If there is any legitimate history in the bible, it's completely obscured by a terrifying, dogmatic homicidal-maniac named god. And this institution we call 'religion' is nothing more than the world's oldest con game. And I also have a better understanding of why people subscribe to the god notion. It's almost certainly not because they love and respect him. They fear him. That's the basis of Pascal's Wager. Coercion of the worst kind seems like a good way to control an ignorant population.

I've read almost all of the great works on atheism. Those books, however, were designed to help those struggling with their identities as atheists to come out of the shadows. This book is different. It's not a manifesto saying that it's 'O.K.' to be an atheist.It's a discourse that helped me understand WHY I'm an atheist. Any book that helps me understand myself is priceless.

GOD The Most Unpleasant Character In All of Fiction is a brilliantly written work by Dan Barker with a hint of humor! While each commentary is delightful reading, the following excerpts from the Bible itself are somewhat demanding with its ridiculous and proscribed aspects of human behavior with proclaimed atrocities. As an aside, it is compellingly obvious that humankind religious worship has been and is astrotheological with a veil of mythical historicityRoman writer Statius (40-96 C.E.) who observed: “The first reason in the world for the existence of gods/religion was fear!” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.” Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Steven Weinberg (born 3 May 1933) is an American physicist who said, “But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Sometimes, it’s difficult to be objective when you really like a person and their work. I can relate to the people who are so into Jesus and his poppa, they fail to see them for what they are. But, as much as I like Dan Barker and appreciate him, I’m not going to just slap a five star rating on all his stuff. Coming in to this book, you must already realize it’s a critique of the stories in the bible, and not the aforementioned figures. The point of this book isn’t to refute the existence of the trinity, because you must already know it is a myth.

You must also already be on board with the understanding that although there might have been a preacher named Jesus, the powers and divinity attributed to him is the stuff of fairy tale. Having already reached these conclusions, then you can focus on examining the bizarre claims of the bible. Put another way, this is like outlining the passages in Dracula which highlight the Count’s terribleness. The main difference being, nobody worships Vlad the Impaler.

It would be pointless for a believer to read this book in the same way that there’s no reason to defend the morality of superman. Wait, maybe there are Jesus nerds who do that; never mind, that’s not the point. What I’m saying is, this book simply references the evil of the bible in order to support the Richard Dawkins sentence which spawned it. It’s an exercise. Because it’s an exercise, it is necessarily tedious. It makes a nice companion to The Skeptics Annotated Bible, which is an amazingly comprehensive guide to all the awfulness the bible has to offer. Barker’s book simply focuses his critique on the main character.

Don’t buy this expecting a loose, free-flowing, entertaining rant about how silly the bible is, or how damaging its so-called “adherents” are to our society. It’s not “The God Delusion” or “god is not Great”. The forward and introduction of the book, and a few intermittent passages are the most flowing bits. Otherwise, it’s essentially a distillation of all the nastiness attributed to the “almighty”. I gave it four stars because it is a decent distillation; a thoughtful, well-presented one. If this is slated to be your introduction to Dan Barker, I’d set it aside and purchase the wonderful, “Godless” first.

This review refers to the audiobook version.

I love this book . Coupled with Dr. Richard Carrier's "The Historicity of Jesus" there is an overcompelling understanding of the total impotence of Christianity and Judaism. Christians and Jews are simply the followers of Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Superman, Batman, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, Richard Simmons of a thousand generations ago. Myths. Characters created out of whole cloth to fill the gaps of understanding and assuage the fear of the unknown and threatening.

I don't recall, but was there a comparison of the number of horrible Bible passages presented in this book to Bible passages that are the opposite? Perhaps we could compare "God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction" with Thomas Jefferson's abridged version of the Bible? I just think it would be interesting to see how much horrible vs how much good, both Old Testament and New Testament.

The layout for the audible version of the book is brilliant, beginning with the foreword by Richard Dawkins, who is a pure delight to listen to on any occasion. Dan Barker, too, is a delight, although he starts out a bit slow in rhythm, a bit too measured, as if his entire audience was from places that didn't have English as their primary language. But that's a minor issue. He soon gets comfortable with reading the passages from book and bible and it is pure pleasure. To top the presentation off was the voice of Buzz Kemper as God. That was a brilliant move.

The sheer magnitude of the horribleness of the the Bible is overwhelming when presented in this manner, which makes this book very important, in my view. It reveals truth.

Okay, the audible version has been done. Where's the kindle version? I need to have access to this thing on my phone! Please.

WHile the book did live up to it's title it seemed to mostly be a new way to rehash old arguments and excuses for human behavior. I purchased it mainly because it was recommended to go with the book 'The Greatest Story Ever Told...So Far'. very disappointed that book is unavailable.

I received a copy of this book through the Goodreads First Reads giveaway program in the hopes that I would leave an honest review.

This book served to reinforce my preconceived notion that religion is merely a means to explain things that society doesn't understand. But it also showed me that it was used as a way to control a group of people (and has continued to do so for thousands of years to an extent). And it confirmed for me that a theocracy based on a literal interpretation of the Bible would be just as violent and wrong as some of the theocracies that employ Sharia law today.

I would honestly recommend this book to everyone. I think it would help to show Christians why there is an increasing number of people who are skeptical of Christianity and why it is difficult for those same people to accept moral outrage based on the Bible. And non-religious people will likely enjoy it because it reinforces their pre-conceived notions (like me).

My one complaint is that I wish the book included more commentary from the author. It would have broken up the monotony of the lists of Bible verses that demonstrate each negative characteristic a little bit.

4 out of 5 stars.

In all fairness, if the idea that our "God" is nothing like we were brought up to believe is new to you, this book has lots of eye-opening bible verses. Unfortunately, it is not much more than that - a very long list of bible verses, generally grouped by category, but most with little or no relevant commentary. While most verses are very disturbing and reveal some truly shocking things about our "Heavenly Father," some are taken out of context, which can be miss-leading at times. Some of the admittedly gory events need to include more than a single verse because they do not necessarily relate to instances of brutality directly demanded by the Lord himself. Since there are so many bloody, atrocious things described as "bringing greater glory to the Lord" throughout the Old Testament, there is really no need to toss in acts committed by, for example, some pagan king. A good companion to this book would be "Oh, My God! Moving Beyond Emerald City." Oh, My God!: Moving Beyond Emerald City

Even if you simply read through all the bible passages (and none of Barker's commentary) highlighting the character of the deity presented in the bible, you'd come away with (if you're honest with yourself) the impression that the deity presented in the bible cannot possibly be God (for those that are inclined to believe that God exists).

Mark Twain supposedly said that the best cure for Christianity is to read the Bible. I don't know if he said that or not, but this book certainly proves the point. I enjoyed reading it, but have to admit that it's not one of Dan Barker's best efforts: read one of his other books instead, or go hear him speak if you get a chance. The book consists mostly just of biblical quotations which illustrate the various shortcomings of the deity, and one's eyes start to glaze over after a few dozen... or a few hundred. Also, many of the quotations are used more than once, in different categories. I would have appreciated more analysis and commentary. And the God of the New Testament gets only one short section -- and Barker even leaves out my favorite example from the NT, namely Acts 5:1-10, where God strikes a husband and wife dead for being stingy with the collection plate! Really! Go look it up.

I really only read 3/4 of this book, but it was primarily quotes from the Bible demonstrating the nastiness of God. Although I agree with that, the quotes from the Bible, although they do demonstrate "[the unpleasant [ness] of [the] character of God, I agree with it, but the series of quotes gets tedious – never mind that they are mostly the KJV, which is the least reliable translation around! I guess with the title like _God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction_, quotes from the Bible are the best way demonstrate the unpleasantness of God, still, a book of quotes is unnecessary and overblown. This should be an article, not a book. Certainly, the point is well validated, but without more than quotes, it's, as I indicated, superfluous.

Many Christians ascribe beautific characteristics such as peace loving, kind, generous, forgiving to their god and his intentions, many simply because of literary ignorance and the simple fact they have never actually taken the time to read the book that is supposedly the centre of their faith - the inerrant word of the perfect, all knowing, loving creator of the universe. Dan Barker's superb book takes the famous Dawkin's description of the God of the bible as it's starting point and for each personality flaw or characteristic pain stakingly catalogues in embarrassing detail passages from the Good book that support each claim. There are pages after pages of examples of the monstrous deity punishing people unjustly, of being petty, jealous, genocidal, racist, sexist etc. It utterly devastates the claim so often made by religious apologists that we get our morality from the bible. If that were so we would be smashing children's heads in, slaughtering cattle for ritual sacrifices, stoning adulterers, homosexuals and disobedient children. Thankfully most of us are better than this dark age superstitious barbarism.

Very well written. It seems like all the negative comments were from those who either didn't read it, or were angry that someone had the 'nerve' to point out how much evil is in the bible. I became very angry in realizing how much evil is truly in the bible and will never understand how anyone can pretend that morals come from it. Their morals support slavery, rape, murder, etc, but it's okay because god said it was cool to torture women and rip fetuses out of pregnant woman. Either way, get it and decide for yourself.

In this book Dan Barker has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard Dawkins’ claim that God is the most unpleasant character in all of fiction is correct. I give the book a rating of 8 on a 10 point scale. Barker documents every single one of Dawkins’ negative attributions of the God character with numerous verses from the Bible, and then goes on to find support for other negative traits. Not only is the documentation superb, but Barker’s commentary is right on target. He explains, expounds, and justifies his conclusions.

I have one disagreement with Barker. In Chapter 28 he claims that God and Jesus are the same person. Although Barker presents Bible verses to support his claim, I think these same verses can be interpreted in a different way and there are many more verses which point in the other direction – that God and Jesus are two separate persons. Nevertheless, God and Jesus are using the same playbook.

All in all, however, this is a well-written and important book. I’d like to see all parents give a copy to their children for high school graduation. Wherever Gideon Bibles are placed in hotel rooms, I’d like to see a paperback copy of this book alongside.

What "Christians' do not want to know! Most of them are the simplistic "Mary Had a Little Lamb and his name was Jesus" types who have never read the Bible. Dan Barker has done an excellent job of calling out the psychotic God and showing him to be a rampaging, murderous villain.

Keep up the good work, Dan, in your books, speeches, and Freedom From Religion Foundation.

This book is a sumptuous feast for those who live their lives in reason, rationality and common sense. Author Dan Barker has given the world a definitive reference point unlike anything else ever written before. A masterwork for the ages.

Mr. Barker begins his book with the words, "Richard Dawkins is a fool," and ends with a chapter entitled "A Terrible End." Aside from those brief forays into truth-in-advertising to bookend his polemic, this is a terribly dishonest, yet revealing, work.

I will highlight the lowlights of four chapters to demonstrate the sorts of exegetical skullduggery in which Mr. Barker engages.

Barker makes the shocking point (which to my knowledge, no one had ever noticed before) that God describes himself as "jealous" in the Old Testament. "The whole point of the Ten Commandments was jealousy . . . The God of the Old Testament craved attention." He offers the suggestion that the male authors of the text projected their sexual insecurity onto the Creator of the universe.

Has Barker understood the meaning and function of jealousy in the Bible? A good debater is an imaginative thinker, someone who can stand in his opponent's shoes and anticipate arguments that one's opponent is likely to make, or at least accurately follow those he or she actually does make. The test of any reading is whether or not a reader has considered interpretations that might make more sense of the text than the first one that leaps to mind. One should not, for instance, suppose that William Shakespeare literally meant Planet Earth was made out of wood and was rectangular when he said "All the world is a stage."

And Barker, who often speaks of his years in Christian ministry before he became an atheist, need hardly put himself out to seek rational interpretations for the "jealousy" of God, as described in the OT: all he has to do is attentively and honestly read the book about which he claims such expertise.

In fact, the Bible offers many rational and moral reasons why God is "jealous" of idols which the Jewish people worshiped (or to show observant readers that "jealousy" in this case means something different from what Barker supposes):

(a) God had created the universe, whereas idols were the work of human hands. It is more rational to worship the Creator than that which we create.
(b) Children were being sacrificed to some of the gods of "the nations," and God was offended. (Barker ignores the fact that Israel outlawed human sacrifice, and imposed that prohibition on the world, through Christianity and perhaps sometimes even Islam.)
(c) Atheists are correct in saying that religion has often been used to justify oppression. The prophets were the ones who best noticed that oppression, and shouted loudest against it. Historian Donald Treadgold therefore pointed out that ancient Israel was the only nation in the region which "managed to avoid the institutions of despotism."
(d) The Bible describes how Israel was asked publicly to choose freely between serving God and serving idols. Worshiping idols was seen as the violation of a contract or Constitution to which Israel had freely entered into.
(e) The analogy the prophets themselves choose is to a marriage, as Barker points out, without considering what that analogy entails, or fairly considering it on its own terms. (As a reader should read even a work of fiction.) Would a husband who freely let his wife sleep with other men, or a wife who was happy when her husband dated other ladies, be an admirable spouse? That is the actual analogy the OT offers, which Barker chooses to ignore for a straw deity, or idol.
(f) Atheists of Barker's sort often say, "I just deny one more god that you do," implicitly admitting that it was a good thing for Jews and Christians to throw off the chains of belief in those thousands of other quasi-divine beings. (Who were really more like superheroes.) Why is it petty and small-minded of God to wish for an exclusive relationship with "his people," but broad-minded and magnanimous for skeptics to say, "Don't worship any of them?" Is a celibate a better lover than a monogamist?
(g) What impact did jealousy have on the Jewish people? One could argue that it allowed them, almost alone among ancient peoples, to survive thousands of years of empire-consolidation and exile, warfare and cultural seduction. Is it not possible that God revealed His "jealousy" to the Jewish people precisely so that they would survive in a tough environment, survive to bless the world? Even on the crudest count, a huge percentage of Nobel Prize winners are Jewish, for instance -- that's an enormous payoff for the exclusive theology that allowed one small nation to survive thousands of years of exile in hostile environments.

My point is not that any of these explanations for God's jealousy are unimpeachable. I am aware of objections atheists will make to each of them, and what I would say in response. That doesn't matter. My point is that while describing God as "the most unpleasant character in all fiction," Barker ignores each and every one of the rational and moral explanations within that "fictional" text for why God acts with "jealousy." It is as if one were to convict a man for murder because he shot another man, and fail to mention that (a) World War I was on; (b) the other man was wearing an enemy uniform; (c) and carrying a rifle; (d) and running towards the first fellow across no man's land. It is grossly dishonest, and awful exegesis.

Barker thus reveals from the very first chapter (actually even earlier) that he is conducting a kangaroo court with "God in the Dock," as C. S. Lewis put it, and that if we expect an honest argument or even a plausible reading of the Old Testament, we'll be badly disappointed.

(2) We go next to Chapter Nine, God is "Misogynistic," since this is a subject on which I have been conducting a great deal of research for an upcoming book.

Here's how Barker begins this chapter:

"The God of the Old Testament was not 100 percent sexist. Here is one example of true gender equality:

'You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters . . . ' Other than that, you are better of being born a male."

What a vile, sleazy, grotesque analysis! Atheists who have an ounce of humanity or good will should, at this point, slam the book down in fury -- never mind Christians.

Both Barker and his wife and co-president of Freedom From Religion Foundation, Annie Gaylor, thus pretend that there is nothing positive about women in the Bible. Gaylor explicitly claimed " Among the most common of the biblical epithets for women are ‘harlot,’ ‘whore,’ ‘unclean.’ Biblical women play one of two roles: they are either superfluous . . . or diabolical.”"

Doubting Gaylor's claim, I sifted through the entire OT. Of course the Bible never says women in general are prostitutes, that is a completely baseless lie. Of course the actual prostitutes one meets in the Old Testament (they did exist) sometimes turn out to be heroines. In fact I could not locate a single woman in the entire Old Testament who was genuinely "diabolical." Some like Jezebaal were nasty, but of course so were many men. In fact, I found that MOST women whose character was developed were shown as mostly heroic. Barker' wife had overlooked Sarah, Rebekah, Esther, Naomi, Ruth, in fact 37 clever, wise, or otherwise admirable female role models, just in the Old Testament. That despite the fact that long passages, even whole books are devoted to such women. (Such as I have seldom found in non-biblical ancient religious literature.)

Barker proves as spectacularly blind to a wealth of contrary evidence as his wife. He pretends that he can't find a single non-sexist portrayal of women in the Old Testament, when the pages are full of such women.

"The Lord Jealous . . . needed to control women. He could invent no more demeaning insults that to compare a nation or city to a woman."

What does that mean? The God of the Bible makes it clear that He loves Jerusalem. As does Jesus: "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who slaughters the prophets, how often I have wished to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, and you were unwilling."

How is it "demeaning" to compare a city, or a boat, to a woman? I don't get offended when Jerusalem is called "The City of David," in fact I rather like it.

"When the serpent told (Eve) that God wants humans to remain ignorant -- 'God knows that when you eat of (the fruit) your eyes will be opened' -- she was curious. Who wouldn't be? She wanted her eyes opened. Eve was the first uppity woman. . . . That was the birth of religion, a shameful covering to hide our true human nature and pretend that we don't know what we know."

When I read this, I knew that Barker's misrepresentations of the Bible have to be deliberate. He really is "pretending not to know what he knows," and to know what he does not know. For Barker deliberately omits the key phrase, "You will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Hubris, or arrogance, is one of the great themes of literature, among the ancient Greeks as well, and is the sin of which Adam and Eve are depicted as committing. But Barker, being dishonest, omits that passage and pretends Eve was simply seeking truth of some general or unspecified character.

Barker blames the story of Eve and Adam for "the source of women's inequality in the Middle East, the Western world, and every country infected with biblical belief."

Why, then, according to a 1988 United Nations study, did 24 out of 25 countries where the status of women was HIGHEST have a Christian background? While all the countries on the bottom of the list were Muslim or Hindu? (Buddhist countries mostly lay in the middle.)

In an even starker proof of his blindness, Barker complains that in Numbers 3, "women don't count" because only males are numbered when Israel is taking a census. He neglects to mention that the first two chapters of the book describe the general census of the nation AND ITS PURPOSE: "whoever is able to go out to war in Israel, you and Aaron shall number by their armies." So the great privilege for which males are being singled out in these chapters is to face the literal slings and arrows of Israel's enemies and get hacked to pieces in an age without pain mediation, sterile bandages, or med evac helicopters. Barker, being either unwilling or unable to honestly and reasonably read things in context, completely inverts the meaning of the passage.

In one tribe the men do not go to war, but are given religious functions in lieu of battle. I'm sure their sweethearts were thrilled, but let's not leave out the context.

Retelling the story of Nabal and Abigail, Barker again lies with impunity. He claims the point of the story is that "God murdered a husband in order to increase David's harem." In fact: (a) There is no suggestion that the marriage was God's plan. Abigail recognized a better match than her former husband, and cunningly took it. (b) Barker neglects to relate what the former husband had done to deserve contempt. (c) This passage portrays Abigail as far wiser than her husband, able to take the initiative to save her people, and knowing when and how to act. It alone falsifies Gaylor's claim that there are no heroic and significant women in the Bible -- and it is very far from being alone.

Barker also ignores the fact that the prophets warned Israel's kings against taking too many wives, and the unfortunate consequences the Bible describes that came of polygamy. True, God gave David the power which in an era in which political bonds were formed through marriage ensured a harem, but Barker is simplifying to make things easy for his argument, again.

Barker also manages to overlook the obvious fact that the rule against selling a slave-girl with whom you've established an intimate relationship with, which he cites as if it showed misogyny, was for the protection of the woman.

"A woman who seduces a male is considered evil." This is Barker's gloss on the story in Proverbs of a woman "dressed as a prostitute" who takes advantage of her husband's absence to tempt a young man into an affair. So Barker's point is that it is self-evidently absurd to view cheating on your spouse as immoral? Or to warn young men against hooking up with women when their jealous husbands are out of town? Barker used to be a song-writer, but evidently he has forgotten the story-line of many country westerns.

Barker ends the chapter:

"When Elizabeth Cady Stanton said that 'The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation,' she was obviously referring to the misogynistic God of the Old Testament."

And that's it. Nowhere in the chapter does Barker mention:

(1) Any of the dozens of OT heroines, even those about whom entire books were written.
(2) Not one word about the numerous passages praising women. (I'll add a link if you doubt me.)
(3) He repeatedly omits context to make innocent or even positive verses sound bad.
(4) He distorts the plain meaning of some texts.
(5) Even verses that protect women he perversely interprets as harming them. (His wife does the same: her explication of the "woman of noble character," the shrewd businesswoman, teacher and philanthropist praised in Proverbs, is a thing to behold.)
(6) Barker anachronistically assumes that ancient humans, like modern humans, could afford to act as discrete individuals, rather than within tightly-knit family units.

In short, Barker again makes his point not by fairly reading the Old Testament even as a work of fiction should be read, but by excluding or distorting with impunity, and even (it seems) lying through his teeth when it aids his case.

(3) I'll be brief with the chapter on slavery, which is also deeply tendentious. Three points. First, in order to make his "case" against the Bible here, Barker stoops to the expedient of turning from modern biblical translations based on up-to-date scholarship, to the KJV. Second:

"We had to wait millennia to abolish the biblically-approved practice of slavery on our own, a progress that was hampered by faith in an ancient slavemonger deity."

Odd then that the abolitionists were mostly Bible-thumpers of the first order.

And third: "Harriet Beecher Stowe reversed (the cause of Simon Legree's) anger towards his slaves: while Simon Legree beat Tom for believing in God, the Lord Jealous walloped people for not believing in Him."

Yet Dan Barker still stands.

Glad he brought up Stowe, though - an excellent case in point. Uncle Tom's Cabin was (a) an evangelical Christian tract; (b) full of Scripture; (c) which argued persuasively that Jesus and the Bible read fairly was plainly against slavery; (d) and convinced much of America, leading to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery.

(4) Finally, Barker turns his big guns on Jesus, and (I was going to say) blows his own credibility up, but there's not much of that left by this time.

The general form of his major argument is (a) Jesus claimed to be God; (b) God was a jerk; (c) therefore Jesus was a jerk, too. This is, of course, a poor argument, especially if you're an atheist. If I claimed to be the president, and you disbelieved me, would you conclude nonetheless that I am rich, am married to a former model, and have yellow hair and come out at midnight to tweet at my enemies?

But even as a shot against Christians, the argument fails singularly. Christians believe a variety of things about the Old Testament, but what we all believe most firmly is that Jesus is the truest image of God. Atheists like Barker may not like it, but "Christian" means follower of Jesus, not of Joshua. All that other stuff has to be interpreted through Jesus, not the other way around. And done so fairly, the Old Testament is full of glorious and well as troubling images: the glory is heightened in light of Jesus, and much of the trouble resolved, as God's image comes into sharper focus in 1st Century Palestine.

Barker stoops to the following spectacular falsehood to besmirch that image:

"(Jesus') comments (in the Sermon on the Mount) about murder, adultery, and swearing falsely are direct quotes from the Ten Commandments of the jealous God. . . His 'eye for an eye' comment is from Exodus 21: 23-25."

This is either astoundingly stupid or astoundingly dishonest, or both. Here's what Jesus actually said about eyes for eyes, for instance.

"You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

How shameless a writer does it take to so brazenly twist the words of the most famous moral teacher in history into such pretzels! What Jesus quoted from Exodus was not "his comment" on the subject at all -- of course. HIS comment came AFTER the "you have heard it said" part, and was bold, revolutionary, earth-shaking, astounding in light of the caution of ancient rabbis in interpreting Scripture (as Craig Keener shows)--all that any honest reformer (like Gandhi, for instance, who rhapsodized over this passage) could wish for!

But Barker pretends Jesus was just repeating the original saying instead of scandalizing the nation by speaking for God more directly and clearly than Moses himself.

Clearly desperate for material to muddy Jesus' character in this chapter, Barker's knavery continues in this rut.

"Instead of putting out the fire, (Jesus) threw gasoline on it."

"Instead of saying, 'I'm sorry my father was so angry,' Jesus looked at his critics 'with anger' (Mark 3:5) . . . "

There are proper times to get angry (atheist Greta Christiana agrees with me on that!) and reading Dan Barker twist Scripture to justify his bigotry is one of them.

So, of course, was the ACTUAL context of Mark 3:5, which was not mainly about people criticizing Jesus, but about doing good to people in need, and about those (like Barker himself) who criticize those who do good, because they have some theological hobby-horse to ride:

"Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.” Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus."

How could a text possibly be twisted out of shape more completely? Jesus was angry not primarily out of personal offense, but because some religious leaders cared more about entrapping a holy man with petty regulations than glorifying God by curing a man who had been disfigured. I think Greta Christiana would understand the propriety of anger when human kindness is so trampled in the mud -- or maybe even when Barker so dishonestly disfigures the face of Jesus in league with the haters.

For in the end, Barker emerges from his own drama as a kind of latter-day Pharisee. He seems to fear the challenge that Jesus poses, and therefore latches onto the most thread-bare accusations to justify a rhetorical crucifixion.

But there is a plot twist which reveals the true character of God. Jesus says, "Father, forgive them." He adds:

"For God so loved Dan Barker, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever should turn from lies and hatred and believe in the Son as he is underneath the lashes and spittle of his enemies, would not perish, but have everlasting life."

Read the whole story, with Jesus in the center, I am still not sure that I would call the picture of God that the Bible reveals "pleasant," as if we were talking about a meadow with flowers and a few cows lowing by. But Jesus does show that God is not in the dock at all, but we are, and that judgement will be just, from a God who is mystifying but ultimately credible.

I like Michael Shermer, I have his books and read Skeptic for years and went to one of his live debates. I find it hard to believe he really promoted this book. I bought it based on his recommendation. Barker's book is at many points simply laughable.

First, his big premise, the bible says bad things, therefore god does not exist. These two points are simply not related.

Next, he claims believers have used the bible to promote many evil things in the world. Who is he talking about, really? For most of history people did not have a bible. Today in the United States you can buy one just about anywhere, but for centuries very few people even had even seen a bible, much less owned one or read one. To claim people have used the bible to promote evil is talking about a VERY small slice of people in a VERY small slice of history. If we list all the evil things atheist have done, does that prove god exists? So let's stop claiming that people and how they act give any indication of whether god exists or not.

Strangely, Barker promotes himself as someone who was on The Daily Show, (I suppose to gain credibility). Technically this is true, he was on The Daily Show, but I saw that episode. They mocked him because he was trying to promote atheism at the expense of a small restaurant. He was hardly on the show because they respected his intelligence.

Here are a couple of examples of his certainty that he is right about his claims, all the while showing he simply does not know what he is talking about (even though he claims he was a preacher, which proves nothing, I have known plenty of preachers who know little about the bible). He says we should call god by his name "jealous" (Exodus 34:14-15), then states god is a title not a name, so let's call him "jealous" as stated in Exodus. Well, the bible doesn't call him God or Lord, those are English words chosen to be used so as not to offend people that believe the name of God (YHWH) is too holy to put in print. It is unfortunate, but many translators have chosen to do this. But Baker, the expert that he is, should know this, as would anyone who would read the one page introduction printed in bibles. The reality is that some 7,000 times in the Old Testament the name YHWH is used. There is no question about the name of god in the Old Testament, it is YHWH, written on just about every page in all 39 books, over and over again.

Or here is another gem Barker gleefully highlights; "When Psalm 137:9 says believers should be happy to dash babies against the rocks", we should be shocked at how mean god is. Subtle, but very disingenuous. This Psalm was written by David, and he never said we SHOULD do anything in this Psalm. David hated the Babylonians and wished them dead. This was his wish, to see them destroyed. To say this is a command directed at anyone is ludicrous, this is one soldier king expressing his hatred of his enemy in a time of war.

Barker included some strongly worded quotes from people down through history that speak about how offensive they find the bible. So what? Quotes by people supporting their love of the bible are a dime a dozen. This proves nothing.

Speaking of quotes, one of the most absurd is Dawkins who challenges, "Try to find those nice verses. Do your best. You think you'll succeed? Want to bet?" Yes, because any child can show you countless verses that are 'nice'. I have no idea why Dawkins would make such a ludicrous claim, other than to sound ‘edgy’.

On a final note, if you are looking for a book that is written by Barker, this book has some of his writing, but it is not what you might think. Much of the book is simply bible verses, pages of them, with a few comments in each chapter. Comments like the ones I mentioned above. I strongly appreciate passion, and have read Barker's other books or listened to several of his debates. Barker is passionate to be sure, but in this particular book he strongly misrepresents the very subject he is criticizing. Perhaps he should have written the title, "Bible Verses I Find Offensive, Which Prove Nothing About Whether Or Not God Exists."

How can one talk about the God of the Bible while not personally knowing Him? This book is written for those who wish to be justified in their desire to disbelieve God, so as to be unaccountable to Him. Vast numbers of people know, believe, and love the God of the Bible. They personally know Him, intimately know Him, and in many cases have given up this earthly life for God knowing that they will forever be with Him for all eternity!

I wanted to read this since I agreed with the title. However, I was put off by knowing that Richard Dawkins wrote the foreword. I considered him too disrespectful to warrant any attention. That was until I read more books written by religious people, and noticed that nobody aside from a female author made no attempt to be respectful.

Dan Barker made strong arguments then backed them up with many verses from the bible. Speaking of those, it was a good thing that he provided them. Otherwise, most of the book would be unfathomable.

Even though some of his comments made me think that I could've wrote something else. I agreed with every one of them. Even though this turned out to be a short paragraph, that previous sentence says a lot of me. Most of the time, author's comments make me want to stop.

When he said there wasn't a good chance of an old lady having a son just like a human virgin birth, he misused a verb. Older people do have children; it's just a common or wise move. Pregnancy is already dangerous enough; it also gets more dangerous at age 37. Also, virgin births are impossible in humans. The reason has yet to be discovered, though.

As much as I agreed with his thoughts on the story of Abraham and Isaac, I don't agree that Abraham had loving parental instincts. I just don't agree that those instincts don't exist for us at all. Most parents claim to love their kids then do something to suggest otherwise or don't show it in some way.

All this said, I wanted to recommend this. I thought that this could be good for making an opinion or seeing if it will change. I also wanted to recommend this because, Dan Barker showed a modicum of respect to believers. As much as he criticized the bible, he never turned around then criticized believers. That was until, he insulted Richard Dawkins for being "too nice". The man doesn't list the same amount of attributes as he does, so he's too nice? What? The author also said this because, Richard Dawkins neglected to mention Jesus. Well, why would he do that if Jesus and God are the same person?

Although he may make some points. He doesn’t tell you how Jesus Christ teaches of the loving aspect of God. And if you listen and practice the teachings of Jesus you will see just how loving God is.

According to the store I should have received my book by 8pm tonight, but did not. I will prematurely rate this book 5 stars based upon the provocative subtitle and attractive front/back covers. After all, the rest is just filler. ;)

All I have to say is don't get all your information about the God of the Bible from Dan Barker. His lack of application of hermeneutic principles and ignoring of many data points that would crumble his thesis elucidates the fact that he isn't interested in the truth here. If you must read it get it from a Library, don't' buy it. It isn't worth your money.

This book is pretty awful. I am a hard-core atheist, and it takes a pretty poor anti-religious book for me not to like it. This is a list of verses with some trivial commentary. Do a "look inside" before you buy (I didn't), to see if it's what you are looking for.

This book, given what is its likely purpose, should have been either an academic essay or a magazine article with short references for the points made.

Sticking to the way the book is written, the author claims that the fictional God of the old testament has dozens of traits that would qualify anything but most villainous as per today's societal norms. Despite the different words used, these traits are largely overlapping and hence repetitious. The description of these traits would not require more than a page length even without any consolidation of the terms. The rest of the book is largely about the specific citations that add little to the claim. The author could have made as convincing a case with a couple of citations for each claim while providing the number for the similar other instances he discovered (or provided them on some website or footnotes for verifications to those interested). Such an approach would have covered the entire theme in less than a dozen pages without any real loss of the basic message.

The real issues are far deeper. Every atheist and/or rationalist knows that God is a highly evolved phenomenon. Even if one were to disagree over its net utility (positives set off against the negatives), repudiating or diminishing the concept as it existed a few thousand years ago is no better than undertaking an exercise that tries to discredit the same era's geocentric notions. For the most religious too, the God of the book has not been what appears literally for thousands of years. The book and various rituals that are associated with that God have meanings in a totally different context. The author tries to prove that he is on to something new by creating an impression that the orthodox believe in the literal God of the book while promoting values that are contradictory. Religions have evolved to encompass different meanings now compared to before. As a result, almost all of them have contradictions when compared against the ethos preached in some other era. For the sake of continuity and communal purposes, the religions have not (or could not have) shut the door on their past to start afresh.

Result: what does one really prove? Or even learn beyond the descriptions in the blurb and first few paragraphs?

I found this book to be a most unpleasant read. If you enjoy reading about this "God" being from an even worse perspective than what the original Bible authors presented, read on! The childish scope, the removal of context, ignoring causality; it is a wonder to behold!

Let me spare you, if you carry any depth to your being at all and do not desire for it to be pilfered by stupidity and childness: this is a book written by Dan Barker, who apparently either harbors painful feelings about his childhood and projects them onto the English fictional being "God", or he is upset that he spent 19 years of his life dedicated to something he never began to understand.

Here I thought the English translations of the Bible had an unparalleled narrow, childish scope... It's as if it's contagious!

This book suffers as many atheistic arguments against God do; namely, the atheist cannot provide a grounding for why God's behavior is bad if there is no God. If atheism is true, why is pettiness, vindictiveness, blood-thirst, and jealousy bad? An atheist may PREFER that one not be jealous or vindictive, but an atheist cannot justify why any of these so-called negative qualities are bad without an objective standard beyond themselves (God). A vindictive person is simply "dancing to the music of his DNA," as Richard Dawkins writes in "The God Delusion."

Arguments against God that are laced with vitriol, such as God being "sadomasochistic," "malevolent," and a "bully" show that the atheist actually knows God exists but hates Him. Christopher Hitchen's book, "God is Not Great" is simply a tirade of anger against the Creator, showing that Hitchens was just angry at God and wanted desperately to live his life the way he wanted without any threat to his autonomy.

Disclosure: I'm a Catholic. But I would certainly rate it higher if it gave me pause for thought or was at least well written.

I'm surprised that Dawkins stooped to a forward of this book. Maybe his powers are failing him. It's an inflammatory presentation and selective reading of the Old Testament. With out-of-context quotes rather like Evilbible.com. The book has a hard job to do, making out that the god of the Bible, said to be love itself by both Jews and Christians, is evil. Yet for at least two thousand years, a loving God is exactly what was believed of it. This new book makes a convincing case of the opposite.

But only on the following assumptions:

The harshest translation of the Bible is the correct one.
The simplest interpretation is the correct one (ie, that God's 'jealousy' is directly equivalent to human jealousy, and so self-serving).
The worst should be presumed where info is otherwise lacking.
The UN Human rights charter applies to a god also.
Death and suffering are always bad.

The book is full of unsupported assertions and self-fulfilling fallacies, for instance opening with Bertrand Russell's famous teapot argument: that ".....the Israelites thought they possessed the source of all knowledge because of a book that they had written". Silly Isrealistes, ha ha! But, Uh, hang on. Firstly, it didn't exist at the time, and secondly believers claim that a god reveals itself, and then, and only then do we have that god's word for the authenticity of the Bible.

But what makes this book deserve 1 star (ie, bad) is the coarse and unengaging writing. Truly only to be enjoyed by the already converted.

(Personal comment: I've actually read the Old Testament (as well as Dawkins). Taken as a whole, it doesn't give a picture of an unloving god but rather an uncompromising one (to be expected, I think), but also patient. The god of the OT constantly puts off punishing the people, sending prophet after prophet to warn them to turn back to him and that obstinancy in their evil deeds (for instance, worshipping metal gods and then burning to death their own children) is provoking him to destroy them, and leaving only a remnant of those few that had been just.

Dan Barker was a fundamentalist for many years. He has taken the next step, shedding mythical belief for a rationalist mindset. He is a classic "orange phase" example as described in spiral dynamics. One hopes he can grow beyond literalism and stop rejecting the countless riches of the ancient wisdom traditions, thereby maturing and stopping embarrassing himself.