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.
I repeat:
J-Mac,
Who do you think caused the hurricane? Satan? And that God is too weak to intervene?
What’s the relevance?
Then make your point.
J-Mac if you have a cunning argument or devastating trap with which to ensare us godless types then just lay it out.
This drip….
….drip
…..drip
…..style of discussion is interminable.
Just tell us what you’re thinking.
fifth:
Where “cosmic tooth fairy” = “someone who doesn’t set out to drown us (in the most loving way possible, of course)”.
That is because he has gross misconception of what God is.
As phoodoo keeps pointing out a god that was made of Christmas lights would not cause the flood.
God is not made of Christmas lights
peace
No one is ignoring anything except you .
We are placing sufferings in context with everything else we know about God.
peace
fifth:
Woodbine has your number:
No I don’t,
The burden of proof is on you.
Christians already know it’s consistent with loving conduct. That is because we know God is loving. Because he loves us.
You need to show why one act that you consider to be unloving somehow cancels out others that are loving.
good luck with that
Even following your logic your argument makes no sense. I’ll bet Ted Bundy loved his mother.
You all seem to be saying that you must love everything equally in order to be considered loving. That is just illogical.
peace
fifth,
No shit, Sherlock. He’s an unloving ass.
Uday would say the same about Norman
peace
This is what I’m talking about. You seem to be claiming that an act that you feel is unloving some how nullifies an act that is loving as if every act that a persons does must be loving in order for that person to be considered loving
It’s just illogical. It might be an emotionally attractive to you but it makes no sense
peace
fifth:
Brilliant move, fifth. “See? God is like Ted Bundy — they’re both loving!”
You’ve taken “loving” and debased it to the point where even Ted Bundy — and your God — qualify.
World’s Worst Apologist.
fifth,
No, I’m saying that it isn’t loving to go around drowning people and destroying their homes. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Has Christianity completed destroyed your understanding of love?
FMM just compared God to Ted Bundy.
I haven’t debased anything. I’m using “loving” the way everyone else uses it as in loves someone.
You are trying to make loving into the equivalent of made of Christmas lights.
Apparently it’s emotionally appealing to you but it makes no sense
peace
sorry i’m pissing myself laughing here
fuck
me
No that was you Woodbine I’m just pointing out that even using your logic your argument falls flat
peace
fifth,
That isn’t the way everyone else uses the term. Hitler loved his dog and Eva Braun. Do you think that qualifies him as supremely loving? Do you go around arguing that “Hitler was a loving guy”?
Who said anything about supremely loving ?
What does supremely loving even mean? Apparently it means made of Christmas lights
peace
Alan,
You’re wondering why we do this? Here is one of the best reasons:
Woodbine:
No, but I’ve never met anyone who would spend all their time trying to convince Eva Braun that Hitler was unloving.
Evil perhaps but not unloving
Peace
fifth,
You have debased “loving” to the point where Ted Bundy qualifies.
So according to you:
Ted Bundy is loving.
Hitler is loving.
God is loving.
With believers like you, God has no need of enemies.
Just as I said, it’s all about preaching to the anti-choir not changing any minds.
Validation must be very important to you.
It’s like you are afraid you made the wrong decision when you were a kid
peace
It’s about entertainment, fifth (among other things).
Where else can we find the spectacle of a grown man thinking it’s a good idea to argue: “God is loving, just like Ted Bundy is!”
That is frikkin’ hilarious.
Please, please share the URL with your pastor so he can have a laugh, too.
I know you are emotionally wrapped up in this but try to think logically for a minute
Ted Bundy did evil things that means he does not love anybody?
peace
The argument from your side is Ted Bundy can not love his mother because he does evil things.
It might be emotionally appealing but it makes no sense
peace
Alan,
Another reason for my persistence is that when I keep guys like fifth talking, they end up shooting themselves in the foot.
If I hadn’t kept the conversation going, fifth wouldn’t have produced the Ted Bundy gem. He’s doing a marvelous job of discrediting his faith, but that won’t happen without a little prodding.
No, fifth. That’s not our argument. Don’t be stupid. (Or on second thought, go ahead. It’s entertaining!)
fifth, then:
fifth, now: “I believe that God is loving for the same reason I believe that Ted Bundy is loving.”
You’re a hoot, fifth.
Alan,
That, in a nutshell, demonstrates why you are such a fish out of water at TSZ.
You actually think that to argue against someone amounts to denying them the freedom to think their own thoughts.
The whole idea of skepticism is repugnant to you. So why are you here, Alan? Lizzie wanted a place where people could voice their skepticism. Why are you so dead set against that?
So you refused to answer the question:
J-Mac: 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!!!!”
and diverting it into another subject because you know very well that direct answer either Yes or No is not very convenient to your unfounded claims…
Damn, J-Mac.
I answered that same question ten days ago, in direct response to you:
Get your shit together, dude.
God is Logic, can God act illogically?
No, its you who is not getting it. Even keiths admits he wants to make choices, but he also wants God to intervene. Well, then the question is how many choices does he want God to make and how many choices does he want to make himself? 50%? Which choices does keiths want God to make for him, and which does he want to make for himself?
Does he get to choose what to think? Who to love? What job to do? To do exercise or not? To learn to drive a car? Or does he want God to make those ones for him?
And what does a God being kind mean to keiths, he refuses to answer that as well. Does it mean no one suffers, ever? No one dies ever? No one has to work? No one has to walk to the convenience store? No one has to make friends? No one has to be a good citizen? No one has to take care of a crying baby, because that is difficult?
Think about it a while, maybe it will soak in. I don’t have much hope for keiths to get it though, he just wants to think of whip cream.
Monty Python meets Benny Hill.
What’s the difference?
Yes he is. And worse, he keeps complaining that no one has given an answer when they have. He wants an explanation for why a supposedly loving god would cause the flood. He’s been given an explanation.
I don’t know about FMM and Phoodoo, but I certainly am really that dense. But you can’t be too bright yourself, getting involved with keiths and Woodbine in this fiasco, lol.
You can’t have me. I’m saving myself for the killer who kills me.
Another false statement by keiths. They are coming fast and furious now. One wonders why. keiths must be losing the argument.
ETA:
It doesn’t matter what the flaws are because it’s a straw-man.
keiths you’re not going to win this argument by continually making things up. You have to at the very least be based in reality.
And Christians don’t advocate for simply ignoring suffering, they try to do something about it. keiths is wrong. Again.
#StrawGod
How about no one has to watch their children being butchered by the God of Love’s armies?
Is that really a stretch for you?
I’d say the same about keiths. 🙂
So?
You have been provided with an explanation for why a supposedly loving God would cause a flood that took lives and destroyed homes. Are you going to keep repeating that you haven’t been provided with an explanation or are you going to admit that you have been given an explanation?
It’s the difference between asking why Hitler chose to exterminate the Jews and asking why Hitler chose to exterminate the Jews when everyone who’s met him says he’s such a swell guy.
Think.
keiths did. 🙂
And infinitely loving.
It means whatever keiths wants it to mean.
So far we know that it means more loving than Hitler’s love for his dog and his love for his girlfriend. As if God’s love belongs on a sliding scale, lol.
keiths still doesn’t get it.
The premise seems to be that you are engaged in skepticism. I deny your premise. You’re engaged all right, but it has nothing to do with skepticism.