Occasionally a theist makes an argument so amusingly stupid that it would be a shame not to share it with a larger audience. This is one of those occasions.
On another thread, we’ve been discussing the unloving way in which God — supposing that he exists at all — is treating the victims of Hurricane Harvey (and the soon-to-be victims of Hurricane Irma, unfortunately). In the course of that discussion, fifthmonarchyman — a Christian — made the following, er, memorable argument:
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
– Isaiah 45:7
keiths:
Yes, and creating disaster for his children is exactly what every loving father sets out to do. Right, Mung?
Nothing says “I love you” like drowning someone or wiping out their possessions.
At that point fifthmonarchyman got the bright idea that he could defend God by arguing that God is not our father. He wrote:
quote:
the Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could it be that He should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him – since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? – Sura 6:101
and
and say: “All praise is due to God, who begets no offspring, and has no partner in His dominion, and has no weakness, and therefore no need of any aid” -and [thus] extol His limitless greatness. – Sura 17:111
end quote:
That’s right, folks. Fifthmonarchyman quoted the Quran to argue against the idea that God is our father — forgetting that the latter idea comes straight from Jesus. What are the first two words of the Lord’s Prayer? Our Father.
Seeing fifth — a Christian — use the Quran to argue (unwittingly) against Jesus is one of the stupidest moves I’ve seen in a long while. I therefore renominate fifth for the title of World’s Worst Apologist.
After posting his comment, fifth belatedly realized that he had just thrown Jesus under the bus. He tried to undo the damage:
Get it keiths ?
A loving father is not the default understanding of God. Not by a long shot.
To know him as Father you need to have met his Son. Once you have met his Son you are simply not dissuaded when bad things happen.
peace
It’s a bit too late to backpedal, fifth.
This is a good time to quote Augustine again, on the topic of Christians who make fools of themselves:
…we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The inanity goes even deeper. I’ll elaborate in the comments.
HAHAHAHAhahahahaha
Here’s the second level of inanity in FMM’s argument:
Suppose, in an alternate universe, that fifth has managed to quote the Quran without causing collateral damage to Jesus, and that in this alternate universe we all agree that God is clearly not our Father.
How would that help fifth’s argument? Does fifth imagine everyone saying “Well, sure, a loving father isn’t going to drown his children or wipe out all their possessions. But if we’re talking about a loving creator, well, then it makes perfect sense. Of course he’s going to drown people, wreck their homes, and ruin their possessions. That’s what love is.“?
The whole thing is pure idiocy.
The idea of God as father is a Christian concept.
I don’t expect a non-Christian to ever get it.
Keith’s is acting as if God as loving father makes sense in a world with out the cross.
Or as if someone who has experienced the love of God expressed in the cross could be dissuaded by suffering.
I quoted the Quran to illustrate that obvious fact.
Keith’s missed the point……… yet again
peace
fifth,
You screwed up and used the Quran to throw Jesus under the bus.
Please, please, share the URL of this thread with your pastor.
Who said Allah is a loving Creator?
here are some Surahs
quote:
“God loves not the unbelievers” (III. 33)
“God loves not the impious and sinners” (II. 277)
“God loves not evildoers” (III. 58)
“God loves not the proud” (IV. 37)
“God loves not transgressors” (V. 88)
“God loves not the prodigal” (VI. 142)
“God loves not the treacherous” (VIII. 59)
“God is an enemy to unbelievers” (II. 99)
end quote:
I don’t think the concept of loving even makes sense when we are talking about a unitarian deity like Allah.
Who does Allah love before he creates the world?
Loves requires a sense of willingness to sacrifice that Allah does not have?
In Islam humanity is repeatedly described as merely Allah’s slaves
When the relationship is only master to slave the emotion is not the sort of thing most would call love.
peace
Are you really this dense?
Why would I quote the Quran to an apostate who was complaining that God did not seem like a loving father to him?
Come on keiths think
peace
fifth,
You are the one who brought the Quran into this, in order to “demonstrate” that God is not our Father. You threw Jesus under the bus, and you only realized your mistake after you heard the “thump, thump” of the wheels over the body. Good thing Jesus is capable of rising from the dead. Looks like he needs to do it again.
My intention was to show that God as father makes no sense to an apostate like you. You have no expectation that God will treat you like a child.
this is the only sort of God you should expect
quote:
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Revelation 19:15
end quote;
you missed the point——again
peace
fifth,
Oh, please.
You were arguing that God was not our Father because you thought it would get him off the hook for his unloving behavior. You stupidly forgot that you’d be contradicting Jesus by making that argument.
I repeat:
In other words, if we ignore the contradiction between what Jesus says and what the Quran-loving FMM claims, how would “God is not our Father” rescue the notion that God is loving?
Why?
fifthmonarchyman writes:
With the greatest respect, I have to disagree.
He’s very good at that. 🙂
That’s a rhetorical question keiths.
This is a nice thread for Rumraket, who thinks the Abrahamic religions are all the same.
No keiths, I was not making your point for you. I was demonstrating how little you actually know about Christian theology.
Oh my, this is rich. keiths in his full glory. Blinding.
So?
Aunt. Uncle. Cousin. Great-Grandmother. Fantastik Chikin. Did they leave anything out?
JWs don’t believe in the cross. They do believe in god as a loving father.
1) “The Cross” is short hand for the sacrifice that Jesus made for his Church. JW’s don’t believe that the instrument of crucifixion was shaped like the letter “t”. but they do believe in the sacrifice “the Cross” represents
2) I’m not saying that you can’t believe in God as a loving father with out the Cross. I’m saying that it does not make sense to believe that God is a loving father with out the Cross
peace
That is OK. It’s a free country.
If you think that you have good evidence that God is a loving father absent the Cross your argument is with keiths not me.
peace
really, are you still clueless??
I don’t expect you to think God is loving. I expect you to think he is pretty much the opposite of loving.
The only reason it ever occurred to you that God might be loving is because you were exposed to a little bit of the gospel as a child.
The problem is that you got just enough to inoculate yourself with a few phrases and concepts here and there but missed out on what it was really all about.
peace
Mung is off sputtering on the sidelines. Phoodoo is frantically trying to change the subject. Fifth, after accidentally using the Quran to argue that Jesus was wrong, is trying to rewrite history to erase his embarrassing mistake.
Not one of you is addressing the actual issue:
A loving human would not even consider drowning the people he loves, driving them from their homes, and ruining their possessions. This is beyond obvious.
If a loving human wouldn’t dream of doing those things, then why does your supposedly loving God do them again and again, year after year?
It’s okay to admit that you have no good answer. We know that already. It’s why you’re trying to avoid the question.
fifth,
Yes, because I pay attention to the evidence rather than sweeping it under the rug.
The question is why you think he is loving despite the fact that he ruins lives and shits on people again and again.
Stop running and answer the question:
fifth, to Vincent:
No, his argument is with you.
You wrote:
Vincent disagreed with you, writing:
Vincent is right. The idea of God as father is not unique to Christianity, and it does make sense in “a world without the cross”.
His disagreement is with you, fifth.
Now you are beginning to understand,
From your limited skewed perspective God is not loving,
He is the ultimate unsympathetic wrath filled judge……………….. and man is he pissed off.
quote:
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Deut 5:9b
end quote:
peace
fifth,
We’re still waiting for your answer.
If a loving human wouldn’t dream of doing those things, then why does your supposedly loving God do them again and again, year after year?
Perhaps you can quote the Quran again to explain why Jesus got it wrong:
Unless there’s a hurricane and God can’t be bothered to rescue you. Maybe he’s too busy saving sparrows.
If you would have payed attention you would have got your answer from the Christians perspective a long time ago in Sunday school
Quote:
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
end quote;
Romans 8:18-23
On the other hand from your perspective the world looks like this
quote:
For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’
For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
end quote:
Luke 23:29-31
peace
You can’t expect him to rescue you he never said he would.
He has already rescued us Christians.
peace
fifth, quoting Paul:
That argument won’t work any better now than it has in the past.
colewd:
keiths:
Another comment of mine, also to colewd:
LoL! keiths really put his foot in it with this one!
Bookmarking.
Bet he won’t cut his losses though. I think he’ll double down.
Sputtering with laughter. You’ve made a fool of yourself. Time for you to move on from this debacle. Better luck next time.
You’re not fooling anyone, Mung.
Perhaps not boy theologian, but you sure fooled yourself.
Still waiting for an actual counterargument from you, Mung. I suspect I’ll be waiting a very long time.
You can’t even defend one of the most basic, central claims of Christianity: that God is loving.
That’s shameful.
keiths, you utterly misread ffm’s quoting of the Quran. Admit it and move on. Or, we can continue laughing at you. That’s ok with me too. 😀
Mung,
Oh, please. My OP explains his screwup, as you know perfectly well.
But for fun, let’s hear you explain why he was quoting the Quran, and how his argument rescues the notion of a loving God.
Meanwhile, God is at it again:
Thanks for the love, God!
And:
The only people who are laughing at keiths are the court jesters.
Each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!
Some kill their love when they are young,
And some when they are old,
Some strangle with the hands of Lust,
Some with the hands of Gold:
The kindest use a knife, because
The dead so soon grow cold.
Some love too little, some too long,
Some sell, and others buy;
Some do the deed with many tears,
And some without a sigh:
For each man kills the thing he loves,
Yet each man does not die.
What purpose does the suffering serve?
Pedant, to Mung:
And even then it’s false bravado. Mung thinks that if he pretends to find my position ridiculous, that others will come to believe that there must be something ridiculous about it.
That strategy might work better if Mung wasn’t already known for making idiotic arguments, such as his extended denial of the fact that Houston is in southeast Texas.
keiths’ legendary mind-reading skills failed him. Time to go in for a tune-up keiths!
I give credit where credit is due. That was a pretty good find Keiths. Though I despise most of what you say, that was pretty good.
What you said brought to mind something I saw today. By accident I saw Jim Bakker on TV. Yes the Jim Bakker who was thrown in jail for being a fraudulent televangelist. The clown has the gaul to keep showing his face and preach, and astonishingly the clown has an audience after all that he’s done.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/disgraced-pastor-jim-bakker-calls-hurricane-harvey-judgement-article-1.3473935
Seriously, are you astonished? As we see with Trump, people like this tend to have a “core following” who sincerely believe their hero can do no wrong. These people are witness to Dawkins’ comment that “there is no sensible limit to what people are capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence…no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.”
You might, with honest effort, be able to recognize yourself in this observation.
It was already explained to you. You chose to not believe it. What a surprise. LoL.
That’s because many conservative Christians really are highly gullible. (They have to be gullible to swallow that 6000 year YEC nonsense).