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.
Woodbine:
It’s bizarre, isn’t it?
And if the policeman did nothing to save the girl, he’d be excoriated. Yet God does nothing and Christians fall all over themselves to worship him.
I’ve made a similar point in regard to the dog eating the baby’s head. An uncle who sat back and watched it happen, without intervening, would be vilified. God not only sees it happening and does nothing; he knew it would happen and did nothing to prevent it. But that’s A-OK with Christians.
And in the dog scenario, whose free will are Christians worried about preserving? The dog’s?
I know… You had already done the damage beyond any possibility of revival… 🙁
Alan:
keiths:
phoodoo:
I’ve done a ton of reading on the topic, but I’ve never seen anyone successfully address the problem.
If you think they have, then quote them! Remember, I asked:
I’ve seen a baby and wanted to drown him. Does that count?
It isn’t. And keiths knows it isn’t. Yet he persists in pretending that he doesn’t know it. Definitely something going on there that has nothing to do with Christians and what they believe about God.
Its not simple but neither is it a problem for anyone with a reasonable understanding of the spiritual and the workings of reincarnation and karma.
Yet you’re utterly immune to it and it hasn’t occurred to you yet that others share that immunity. Get a clue keiths. When you mock it just makes it appear like you don’t have an actual argument. It actually weakens any case you might think you have.
Where is it written?
That was the Israelite God. Keiths doesn’t complain about him.
What in the world makes you think you would recognize when they have?
Well, since you have that understanding, you can probably explain it to us. Go ahead. How do you resolve the problem?
I’m not saying that is what it means. I was pointing out just one property of blood that leads to consciousness. But blood has a host of other properties, many of which most people are unaware of.
So you have no idea what it means either. Gibberish, or the functional equivalent thereof.
But surely the kidnapped girl’s soul is ultimately the most important issue. That soul gets to Heaven.
Alan Fox,
Woodbine would prefer a world without choices?
phoodoo,
Surely that’s for him to say.
A world without girls and sex.
keiths:
phoodoo:
Then by all means help me out. Again:
How do you know that it was specifically the Christian God that refused to forgive them? How do you know that the Christian God did not forgive them? Why should anyone believe your analysis?
Why are you so afraid to answer the questions?
keiths:
CharlieM:
John:
Seconded. And be sure to tell us why your explanation is superior to this one:
Mung,
Why are you asking that dumb question? Modern-day Christians aren’t Marcionites.
newton:
Mung:
keiths:
Mung,
Are you seriously trying to argue that Yahweh is not the Christian God? Do you think that will get the Christian God off the hook?
phoodoo:
Mung:
Mung’s world, in other words.
Alan,
If that were the overriding concern, then believing Christians would kill their children to ensure their salvation before doubt had a chance to creep in.
However, there is that little “Thou shalt not kill” detail.
Anyway, you’re missing Woodbine’s point, which is about the double standard.
I have noticed something interesting, that Keiths and Sal share one major thing in common. They uniquely appear to be universally disliked on BOTH sides of the aisle. Its quite an accomplishment.
Mung,
Actually, no.
And considering the amount of (attempted) mockery you dish out, that’s fortunate for you.
Being unable to provide an argument is what makes it appear that you don’t have an argument. That’s where your problem typically lies.
phoodoo,
Since you’re back, would you care to provide the names of some thinkers who have successfully addressed the problem I raise in this thread, along with relevant quotes?
keiths,
Argument ala keiths:
keiths: “That’s not what a loving God would do, that’s also not what a loving God would do, there can’t be a loving God because he would never do that.”
Anyone who bothers to ask: “Then what is your definition of a loving God?”
Keiths: “Stop trying to avoid the question, that’s not what a loving God would do…I CAN’T HEAR YOU!! I CAN’T HEAR YOU, NAH NAH”
keiths,
You could just try reading this thread. It wouldn’t even take effort. But you would have to pull your fingers out of your ears.
Otherwise, go do your homework, its not my job.
phoodoo,
Since you are unable or unwilling to present your argument, why not find someone who makes a similar argument and present it instead?
phoodoo, I think Woodbine has your number:
So? Are you a Marcionite? What prevents you from accepting that the bible must be talking about different gods depending on who is doing the writing? What makes you think that all the different authors of all the different books of the bible are all talking about the same God? That’s another question you didn’t answer.
LoL!!!
You’ve got the Christian God on a hook have you. How about moving him over to a cross. After that you can mock him and spit on him. And cast lots for his clothes.
😀
Mung,
I don’t have to. He did all of that to himself, remember?
From here:
As I remarked to fifth:
Keiths already dredged up what I said earlier but you seem unable to absorb it so, third time’s the charm…..
A world where God refrains from slaughtering children is not the same thing as a world without choices.
Not even close.
Mung:
keiths:
And:
Mung:
You claim to be a Christian. Do you seriously not know that Christians consider the God of the Old Testament to be the same God as the God of the New Testament? Do you really think you can get the Christian God off the hook by arguing otherwise, as a Marcionite would?
Phoodoo, it’s not necessary to come up with an exhaustive definition of what a loving God entails. It’s just necessary to explain how a direction to slaughter babies (well, anyone really, I don’t know why we always put so much stock in babies) could be entailed by the concept of a loving God. Perhaps you could explain this isolated point from your perspective? Is it a greater good type argument? By slaughtering some people now, a greater number of people are better off?
Timothy, to phoodoo:
Or that somehow, God must slaughter babies because otherwise, we would live in a world without choice?
If it’s either of those, please lay out your reasoning. If not, then tell us: why does your “loving” God choose to slaughter babies?
There’s a potential quote mine if ever I saw one!
I don’t get the choice argument in general anyway, but particularly in relation to the Amelekites, isn’t it the opposite? God is interfering in people’s choices by telling them what to do? (Questions for Phoodoo)
I do hope he’ll answer this time.
True! Just something about the rhetorical flourish of “innocent babies” that always irritates me.
Timothy:
Woodbine:
And from my earlier comment:
The idea is that if God stepped in every time to prevent a bad person committing an evil act then the world would be morally meaningless.
The argument doesn’t work – a shooter whose bullet God flicks away from the target at the last moment is in exactly the same moral condition as if the bullet hit the mark.
But this ‘free-will’ or ‘choice’ argument is irrelevant when applied to those folk directly killed by God (Amalekites et al), or victims of natural disasters.
And that’s when the equally hopeless ‘greater-good’ arguments usually get wheeled out.
Woodbine,
Or the closely-related ‘God works in mysterious ways’ arguments. As if declaring something a mystery somehow constituted a solution to the problem.
Woodbine:
Hence the far-fetched attempts to blame natural disasters on the Fall, so that they’re the fault of humans, not God.
Just to save them the trouble….