FMM throws Jesus under the bus

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:

Mung:

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.

1,207 thoughts on “FMM throws Jesus under the bus

  1. keiths:

    That’s right. God had the power to forgive Adam and Eve. A loving God would have forgiven them. The Christian God refused to forgive them, banished them from the Garden, made their lives miserable, and then blamed their descendants as if they had anything to do with it.

    The Christian God is an unloving asshole. Thank God (so to speak) that he doesn’t exist.

    And just to complete the picture, he decides that since Adam and Eve ate a particular fruit — something he knew would happen before he even created them — everyone must be tortured for eternity after they die. (Can’t you feel the love?)

    But wait — there’s a way out! This psychotic God is willing to forgive us after all, because he tortured himself to death! He just needed a little more blood and gore in order to forgive us, that’s all. (Can’t you feel the love?)

    So FMM comes along and says “ignore the natural disasters, ignore all the ways God torments people, and look to the Cross,” as if the cross were some great symbol of love. It isn’t. It’s the symbol of a creepy God who

    a) creates people and sticks them in a Garden;

    b) gets the bright idea of putting a tree in the Garden that he doesn’t want them to eat from;

    c) blames them for eating from it, even though he knew that would happen before he even created them;

    d) blames their descendants, as if they had anything to do with it;

    e) decides that everyone must be tortured for eternity, because Adam and Eve ate from a tree that he was stupid enough to put in the Garden;

    f) decides that he might be willing to forgive everyone in exchange for more blood and gore;

    g) in the ultimate act of self-loathing, tortures himself to death; and

    h) with his blood lust satisfied, finally agrees to forgive people;

    i) except that even with his bloodlust temporarily satisfied, he’s still an asshole; so

    j) he decides that he’s still going to torture for eternity the folks who don’t believe in him at the moment of death, and only forgive the ones who suck up to him.

    Can’t you feel the love?

    Christians, pause and ask yourselves: What happened to me? How did I end up believing something as stupid and ridiculous as Christianity? Why am I labeling this monstrous God as ‘loving’?

    The Holy Spirit is a wondrous thing. It descends on people, making them incredibly stupid. It even makes them forget what love is.

  2. Meanwhile, phoodoo is still pushing his idiotic notion that God drowns people with hurricanes because otherwise we would live in a world without choice.

    Phoodoo is afraid to answer questions, of course, but is there anyone else who actually thinks he’s right? And is willing to explain to us how the absence of hurricane deaths would mean the absence of choice?

  3. Mung,

    And keiths wonders why we don’t “defend” God against his subjective idea of what he thinks luv ought to be like.

    I know why you don’t defend the notion of a loving God. It’s because you can’t.

    And so we have the spectacle of Christians debasing the concept of love. They need to. They’re embarrassed by their God’s behavior and ashamed that he isn’t loving. What’s a Christian to do? Lower the bar. Redefine love so that even their asshole God qualifies.

    So let’s hear it, Mung. What is your debased definition of love, by which a God who drowns people and destroys their homes qualifies as “loving”?

  4. Mung,

    Many Christians believe that God caused a flood that wiped out all mankind except just a few.

    Do I really need to point out that mass slaughter is not a loving act?

  5. So all the bible experts and scholars agree that God could have forgiven Adam and Eve their sin …
    Well …lets see…

    Gen: 3:1-4

    “1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden ‘?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! “

    How does it look now?

    If God had forgiven Adam and Eve, what would it make him?

  6. J-Mac,

    First, note that God lied to Adam, while the serpent told the truth to Eve.

    God told Adam this:

    17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    Genesis 2:17, KJV

    It wasn’t true, but perhaps God thought he could scare them out of eating the fruit by lying to them.

    The serpent was correct to say “Ye shall not surely die”. Not only did Adam not die that day — he lived to be 930 years old. (A claim that elicits another guffaw.)

    Since God had already lied to Adam and Eve, what difference would it have made if he had done the loving thing by forgiving them?

  7. And even if you pretend that it wasn’t a lie, it’s obvious that a wise and loving God wouldn’t make such an unloving threat to begin with.

  8. keiths:

    newton,

    In case you missed it:

    Some of your comments have me wondering. Do you believe in God? If so, do you believe he is both powerful and loving?

    newton:

    I did [miss it], thanks

    Are you planning to answer? If you’d rather not, just say so.

  9. keiths,

    The more you ask others to answer questions, the more like an idiot you come off as.

    Try to gain some awareness of your image. You run and hide from every question.

  10. phoodoo,

    You (and all of the other believers here) are unable to explain why your supposedly loving God drowns people, drives them from their homes, and destroys their possessions.

    You simply ignore the evidence and continue to believe in a loving God, blindly and for no good reason.

    Who’s the idiot here? Hint: it’s not me.

  11. keiths: So FMM comes along and says “ignore the natural disasters, ignore all the ways God torments people, and look to the Cross,” as if the cross were some great symbol of love. It isn’t

    Christians don’t ignore those things. They place them in context with the additional personal information we have about God’s love for us displayed in the cross.

    And of course you don’t think the cross is proof of God’s love. I would not expect otherwise

    quote;
    For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.(1cor 1:18)
    end quote:

    Your argument is only effective with folks who already agree with you.

    You are literally preaching to the anti-choir.

    The only reason I can think of that you continue to do so endlessly is because you are trying to convince yourself that you are not missing something.

    peace

  12. fifth:

    Christians don’t ignore those things.

    You recommend that they do. You wrote:

    I just think that the way to understand God’s love is to look at the Cross and not at the latest natural disaster.

    Fight the truth. Ignore that evidence.

    They place them in context with the additional personal information we have about God’s love for us displayed in the cross.

    What love? The only reason God had to die for your sins is because he was too much of an ass to forgive you otherwise. He wanted more suffering, more blood and gore.

    Read this again. When you take an honest look at Christianity, even the cross shows that God is unloving.

    It’s like a fireman who sets fire to your house and then takes credit for saving you from the flames. You fell for it, fifth, but not everyone is so gullible. You’re a believer, not a thinker. It simply never occurred to you to ask the right questions.

  13. FMM stepped between the bodies of the children recently slaughtered by the Army of Yahweh. He looked down, his trousers were soaked in their blood. As he pondered this he heard a sobbing nearby. A dying mother cradling the remains of her infant daughter saw him:

    “Why? Why have they perpetrated this evil?”

    “Madam….you really ought to put this in context”

  14. fifthmonarchyman:
    Your argument is only effective with folks who already agree with you.

    Generally in this type of setting that it true about anything, Biblical quotes as evidence to those who do believe the Bible is God’s word not very persuasive.

    You are literally preaching to the anti-choir.

    My guess K would say he is preaching to the pro-logic choir

    The only reason I can think of that you continue to do so endlessly is because you are trying to convince yourself that you are not missing something.

    peace

    That may due to your assumption everyone believes in God so disbelief is rebellion against that belief. I find the assumption K likes to argue about anything more likely since the illogic of a loving God is not the only subject on which he engages.

    Then again you may just being passive-aggressive

  15. keiths,

    J-Mac: If God had forgiven Adam and Eve, what would it make him?

    It seems to me you are either afraid to answer my question or don’t know the answer…and that’s why you are dodging it and trying misdirection…

    Which one is it? Maybe both?

  16. A loving God would prevent keiths from preaching to the anti-choir. Yet keiths continues to preach to the anti-choir. Therefore, God does not exist.

  17. keiths: You (and all of the other believers here) are unable to explain why your supposedly loving God drowns people, drives them from their homes, and destroys their possessions.

    I referred you to the account of the flood which you ought to at least be familiar with given your vast knowledge of the bible. That account clearly sets out why God did what he did.

  18. keiths: That’s right. God had the power to forgive Adam and Eve. A loving God would have forgiven them. The Christian God refused to forgive them…

    This is just you, making stuff up again. No Christian here need believe anything you write. How do you know that God did not forgive them?

    Show us your reasoning.

  19. newton: My guess K would say he is preaching to the pro-logic choir

    No, he isn’t. He’s failing to take into account the evidence, and then accuses others of doing what he is doing. It’s hilarious, really.

  20. J-Mac:

    If God had forgiven Adam and Eve, what would it make him?

    It seems to me you are either afraid to answer my question or don’t know the answer…and that’s why you are dodging it and trying misdirection…

    Good grief, J-Mac. I’d give the same answer as Woodbine: If God had forgiven Adam and Eve, it would mean that at least on that occasion, he was merciful.

    You, on the other hand, apparently think it would make him a liar. Hence my earlier response:

    First, note that God lied to Adam, while the serpent told the truth to Eve.

    God told Adam this:

    17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    Genesis 2:17, KJV

    It wasn’t true, but perhaps God thought he could scare them out of eating the fruit by lying to them.

    The serpent was correct to say “Ye shall not surely die”. Not only did Adam not die that day — he lived to be 930 years old. (A claim that elicits another guffaw.)

    Since God had already lied to Adam and Eve, what difference would it have made if he had done the loving thing by forgiving them?

    And even if you pretend that it wasn’t a lie, it’s obvious that a wise and loving God wouldn’t make such an unloving threat to begin with.

  21. keiths, to phoodoo:

    You (and all of the other believers here) are unable to explain why your supposedly loving God drowns people, drives them from their homes, and destroys their possessions.

    Mung:

    I referred you to the account of the flood which you ought to at least be familiar with given your vast knowledge of the bible. That account clearly sets out why God did what he did.

    Yes, and it merely confirms that God is an unloving ass.

    As I asked you earlier:

    Do I really need to point out that mass slaughter is not a loving act?

  22. keiths: Yes, and it merely confirms that God is an unloving ass.

    So you agree that it changes what you think God, as understood by Christians, ought to be like? Christians don’t have your straw-man view of God, so please stop arguing as if they do.

  23. Mung: No, he isn’t. He’s failing to take into account the evidence, and then accuses others of doing what he is doing. It’s hilarious, really.

    K might not be appealing to the pro-logic side in your opinion but that does not preclude him from saying that he is.

    Not sure there is really much non-emotional evidence for the exact intentions of a deity anyway.

  24. Mung,

    How do you know that God did not forgive them [Adam and Eve]?

    Show us your reasoning.

    Don’t play dumb.

    If he did forgive them — and most Christians think he did — then it was only (retroactively) because he tortured himself to death, not because he was a loving, generous God who was just plain willing to forgive.

    As I put it earlier:

    [The cross is] the symbol of a creepy God who

    a) creates people and sticks them in a Garden;

    b) gets the bright idea of putting a tree in the Garden that he doesn’t want them to eat from;

    c) blames them for eating from it, even though he knew that would happen before he even created them;

    d) blames their descendants, as if they had anything to do with it;

    e) decides that everyone must be tortured for eternity, because Adam and Eve ate from a tree that he was stupid enough to put in the Garden;

    f) decides that he might be willing to forgive everyone in exchange for more blood and gore;

    g) in the ultimate act of self-loathing, tortures himself to death; and

    h) with his blood lust satisfied, finally agrees to forgive people;

    i) except that even with his bloodlust temporarily satisfied, he’s still an asshole; so

    j) he decides that he’s still going to torture for eternity the folks who don’t believe in him at the moment of death, and only forgive the ones who suck up to him.

    Your God is a piece of work, Mung.

  25. Mung: A loving God would prevent keiths from preaching to the anti-choir

    I think you are missing the point. If God is the necessary cause of all things, it is not about prevention ,it is about not causing it in the first place.

  26. Mung:

    I referred you to the account of the flood which you ought to at least be familiar with given your vast knowledge of the bible. That account clearly sets out why God did what he did.

    keiths:

    Yes, and it merely confirms that God is an unloving ass.

    Mung:

    So you agree that it changes what you think God, as understood by Christians, ought to be like?

    No, not at all. Christians claim that God is supremely loving. The evidence, both Biblical and reality-based, shows that he isn’t.

    The Christian view of God isn’t viable. Christianity is false.

  27. keiths: If he did forgive them — and most Christians think he did — then it was only (retroactively) because he tortured himself to death, not because he was a loving, generous God who was just plain willing to forgive.

    So you admit you were making stuff up. First you claim that God didn’t forgive them, then you say that Christians believe that God did forgive them. So which is it? God forgave them or God did not forgive them. Make up your mind and at least make a consistent argument.

    If you maintain that God did not forgive them, what’s your reasoning?

  28. keiths: The Christian view of God isn’t viable.

    So? If that’s true you shouldn’t need to misrepresent either what God is like or what Christians think God is like. Don’t you agree?

  29. Does anybody else have any ideas?

    Let’s look at the context of my original comment:

    “Gen: 3:1-4

    “1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden ‘?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die!

    If God had forgiven Adam and Eve, what would it make him?

  30. Mung: So? If that’s true you shouldn’t need to misrepresent either what God is like or what Christians think God is like. Don’t you agree?

    Only the later

  31. Mung,

    You’re really grasping at straws. I laid it out explicitly:

    e) decides that everyone must be tortured for eternity, because Adam and Eve ate from a tree that he was stupid enough to put in the Garden;

    f) decides that he might be willing to forgive everyone in exchange for more blood and gore;

    g) in the ultimate act of self-loathing, tortures himself to death; and

    h) with his blood lust satisfied, finally agrees to forgive people;

    Your God is an asshole. He needs therapy, not worship.

  32. keiths:

    The Christian view of God isn’t viable.

    Mung:

    So? If that’s true you shouldn’t need to misrepresent either what God is like or what Christians think God is like.

    I don’t. My statement is correct:

    Christians claim that God is supremely loving. The evidence, both Biblical and reality-based, shows that he isn’t.

    The Christian view of God isn’t viable. Christianity is false.

  33. newton, to fifth:

    Then again you may just being passive-aggressive

    Speaking of passive-aggressive:

    keiths, to newton:

    Some of your comments have me wondering. Do you believe in God? If so, do you believe he is both powerful and loving?

    keiths, two days later:

    newton,

    In case you missed it:

    Some of your comments have me wondering. Do you believe in God? If so, do you believe he is both powerful and loving?

    newton:

    I did [miss it], thanks

    …followed by no answer.

    keiths, the following day:

    Are you planning to answer? If you’d rather not, just say so.

    newton:

    I don’t mind answering,

    …followed by no answer.

    Whatever, newton.

  34. keiths,

    Christians claim that God is supremely loving. The evidence, both Biblical and reality-based, shows that he isn’t.

    The Christian view of God isn’t viable. Christianity is false.

    We are still stuck at the frog’s interpretation of the evidence.

  35. colewd,

    You’re making the same mistake as always.

    If I’m a “frog at the bottom of a well”, then so are you. So the next time someone asks you if God is loving, at least be consistent and say “I have no idea. I consider myself to be a frog at the bottom of a well.”

  36. keiths: No, not at all. Christians claim that God is supremely loving. The evidence, both Biblical and reality-based, shows that he isn’t.

    He slaughters children….but in an infinitely loving way.

    All the while Mung is running interference ‘You’re straw-manning God‘, FMM can’t see any problem because ‘He’s been good to me‘, and J-Mac pounds the Bible crying ‘He had no choice!’

    It’s beautiful.

  37. Is that a no, keiths? We should continue to expect more stupid questions from you?

    If you don’t understand God, why not just say so? God’s a mystery to you. An enigma. He fails to conform to your expectations. Admit it.

  38. Mung,

    If you don’t understand God, why not just say so? God’s a mystery to you. An enigma.

    …says Mung, who can’t explain why his supposedly loving God acts like an unloving ass.

    God isn’t a mystery to me, Mung. He’s a fictional character, and the people who believe in him can’t even get the story straight.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.