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.
Keiths wants infinite love so bad he can taste it.
It tastes like whip cream.
fifth,
That’s because you’re either not very perceptive, or not very honest. What I’m arguing, as anyone who honestly reads the thread can tell, is that the Christian notion of God as supremely powerful and loving is false.
I’m sure it feels good to pretend that I’m simply complaining that God is mean, but that’s false, and it reflects poorly on you.
ETA: Ditto for comments like this:
My choice has long since been validated, and this thread is just an extra little bit of icing on the cake. Not one single believer here has been able to explain why their supposedly loving God drowns people and destroys their homes.
That’s were discussions usually end for me…
Woodbine, to J-Mac:
Amen.
No, you are not arguing. Unless you call it the Monty Python School of Arguing.
What you are doing is saying “Its false, its false!”, then putting your hands over your ears and screaming, “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you, its false I tell you, why doesn’t your God love me more….I can’t hear you. Give me whip cream Wa wa, wa…”
Perhaps when you talk to your children you refer to this as arguing.
Why would an all-powerful God allow all those people to write those nasty things about him in the bible. Therefore God does not exist!
Why do you keep repeating this demonstrably false statement? Continued repeating of a lie doesn’t make it true.
phoodoo,
What I’m doing is saying “it’s false” and then explaining why it’s false, in detail.
You’re clearly frustrated that you can’t refute me. Remember, you actually started to make a counterargument — your “world with choice” argument — and then bailed out when you saw that it was backfiring on you.
Sputter all you want, but I’ve made an argument, and you can’t refute it.
keiths:
Mung:
If it’s demonstrably false, then demonstrate its falsehood.
Because you keep repeating things that are demonstrably false and because you repeatedly beg the question and because you repeatedly fail to answer the questions put to you.and because you’re annoying and self-righteous and and and …
Poor Mung. The appropriateness of his avatar has never been more apparent.
I’ve repeatedly directed you back to the bible to read the account of the flood, in which God explains why he did what he did. Did you go back and read it?
Or does that not count for some odd reason?
Discuss why you think the Christian God did not forgive Adam and Eve. Bring evidence to support your claims.
You mean the point that you refuse to address? That point?
Right, you aren’t arguing, you are whining with your ears covered.
Mung,
And I’ve repeatedly reminded you that mass slaughter is not a loving act. It wasn’t when Hitler did it, and it wasn’t when God (supposedly) did it.
This is news to you?
keiths: The Christian God is not loving.
Mung: Yes he is! Look at all the people he killed in the Flood!
Derp.
And evolution has just been falsified too…
Your claim was that no one had been able to offer an explanation. That claim was false. It’s been pointed out twice now that it’s false. Are you going to keep repeating it anyways?
Rewriting history again. But when you got nothing else …
I just love it when keiths starts making things up. He can’t even keep his own arguments straight. lol.
Mung,
Did you miss, or pretend to miss, the words I’ve bolded below?
Christ, Mung. What a waste of time you are.
keiths,
Keiths is now caricaturing himself.
Which choices should a loving God make for you keiths? Chocolate or vanilla whip cream?
Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? 😉
O’RLY?
Prove it is God!
The fact is he lacks the capacity to hear an explanation.
Any explanation you could possible give him would sound to his ear like an excuse.
That is because he is emotionally committed to the idea the God is mean.
Just like Uday Hussein was emotionally committed to the idea that Schwarzkopf was mean.
That is not to say that we Christians are not emotionally committed to the Idea that God loves us.
The fact is love is an emotional thing. That should be obvious
Your opinions about how loving or unloving a person is a very personal subject, it depends chiefly on personal experience and emotional responses play an integral part of personal experience
peace
The bolded words won’t rescue you. You claimed no one had given an explanation. That was false. You were given an explanation for why a “supposedly loving God” would drown people and destroy their homes. Deal with it.
#SoreLoser
It’s hard to figure out what he’s thinking, he’s all over the map. Maybe he thinks God didn’t cause the flood. Maybe he doesn’t think the flood killed anyone or destroyed any homes. Maybe he thinks the God who caused the flood wasn’t a supposedly loving God. He can’t explain his objection to the answer that he was given, all he can do it make it seem like he was actually saying something else. Truly sad.
Stockholm syndrome.
It’s all in your perspective.
To you it might look like Stockholm syndrome to the Christian it’s perfect matrimonial bliss.
The heart wants what the heart wants 😉
peace
I agree. and I think it’s getting worse
I notice it a lot more now than I did when I first came here.
peace
keiths could meet the loving God, but he’d have to admit he was wrong. So probably not going to happen.
Yep,
There but for the grace of God go I.
peace
keiths could meet the loving God, and then say, I thought you would be made of Christmas lights, you are not what I was hoping for, I guess you don’t love me enough.
You offered an explanation – that completely misses the point.
Keiths isn’t asking for an explanation why God caused the flood – he is asking why a supposedly infinitely loving God would commit such an act.
Nobody is being fooled with your dance, Mung.
I used to comment at UD, but nothing happening there these days. Anyway, been following this conversation from the beginning.
FMM, Mung, and Phoodoo, are you really that dense? Answering my own question, no you are not. For some reason you pretend to not know what is going on. Keith’s argument is crystal clear. Given the assumptions; God is omniscient and God is omnipotent, then God could stop hurricane Irma, or steer it harmlessly out to sea. God declined to do that, and lots of people died or had their homes destroyed. This is inconsistent with the further assumption that God is all loving.
Your responses have been (paraphrased):
FMM – “if you know God properly, you would not regard his conduct as unloving”.
Phoodoo – “you haven’t defined what you mean by the word love or what an ideal world would look like”
Mung – sorry, I don’t know what your argument is.
FMM, somehow, in your argument, you have to explain how not stopping a natural disaster when its within your power can be consistent with loving conduct. Maybe it could be. I can’t really see how, but could you explain in what circumstances one could love someone and want the best for them, but not intervene to stop them suffering a terrible fate? I just don’t get it.
Phoodoo, it doesn’t matter what perfect love is, or what your idea of a perfect world is, or what keiths idea of a perfect world is. It just comes down to whether allowing people to suffer horrible fates that could easily be prevented comes within your idea of a love.
The parallels are striking.
FMM, Mung, J-Mac, Phoodoo – they remind me of those women who fall in love with serial killers in prison.
“You people just don’t understand him the way I do!”
Yeah.
fifth, to petrushka:
Some husbands bring roses or an occasional gift. God drowns people or destroys their homes. Perfect matrimonial bliss.
Woodbine:
Exactly.
@ Petrushka, Woodbine,
OK, what’s the plan for deprogramming 230,000 deluded US Christians?
Timothy,
Welcome to TSZ, Timothy;
Except all those dead are in Heaven now, experiencing the joy of God’s love to the full. Aren’t they?
Anime.
Timothy, to Mung:
I’m not sure even Mung knows what his argument is. He started out defending God as loving. Now he’s citing the Flood story and “Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated”, as if those would somehow help his case.
My best guess is that he’s trying to say “We already know that God is an asshole; we’ve just redefined “loving” so that God qualifies despite being an asshole.”
If you’re ashamed of your God’s behavior, then just lower the bar so that even he qualifies as “loving”. If you can’t elevate God, then debase love instead.
Alan,
That’s the same dumb argument that fifth is making — that we should simply ignore the sufferings of the present since they pale in comparison to the joys of Heaven.
A moment’s reflection reveals the flaws in that argument. First, not everyone goes to Heaven. In the Christian scheme, some lucky folks get shat upon by God both in this life and in the next. That didn’t occur to you?
Second, even if you were to ignore that and assume that everyone is going to Heaven, it doesn’t transform unloving acts into loving ones. Can you imagine a loving God saying “Oh, good, since I’m eventually granting humans eternal bliss in the hereafter, that means I can shit on them now! Excellent! I’m going to kill them and their relatives, destroy their homes and possessions. The more suffering, the better. After all, I love them so.”
It’s ludicrous.
What justice does a serial killer deserve in your view?
fifth,
Where “personal experience and emotional responses” = Stockholm syndrome.
“God destroyed my home, but that’s only because he loves me so. I’m grateful to him.”
J-Mac completely misses the point:
I’m trying to make a point…unlike you…
BTW: You got proof yet that God is causing the flooding today?
J-Mac,
Who do you think caused the hurricane? Satan? And that God is too weak to intervene?
I’m trying to make a point…unlike you…
BTW: You got proof yet that God is causing the flooding today?
I’ll help you because you have been avoiding the subject…
Who was casing ALL the “natural disasters” to Job?
God?
Yes or No answer only!!!!
Timothy:
That’s right.
And before he lost his nerve, phoodoo was actually starting to argue that God doesn’t want people to suffer horrible fates, but allows it because otherwise we would live in a world without choice.
Things kind of fell apart when I asked him this: