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. Flint:

    Seriously, are you astonished?

    Yeah because Jim Bakker has no charisma, looks ugly, speaks stupid and is a convicted criminal. What does any one see in that loser!

    Joel Osteen is much smoooooooother. His net worth is 55 million dollars. Supposedly EARNED by selling books because he takes no salary from his congregation. Good for him. And I don’t recall ever seeing him hustle for donations.

    I loved his sermon. I’d send the guy 10 bucks for a good sermon like that. He gets 5.5 million people to feel the same way, that’s 55 million. One sermon I had in mind was:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJfw82onrzw

  2. Mung,

    Interesting that you would choose to truncate my statement at that point…

    But for fun, let’s hear you explain why he was quoting the Quran…

    …when this is what I actually wrote:

    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.

    You are utterly transparent, Mung.

    ETA: Speaking of which, I caught you quote mining again.

  3. Flint, to Sal:

    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.

    Or in Augustine’s observation, which Sal liked so much:

    …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.

    Remember, Sal, you’re the guy who told us, with a straight face, that you were a creationist because the creationists had offered you “a better deal” than the evolutionists.

    My incredulous response:

    That is profoundly stupid, Sal. Dumb as shit.

    So if the Scientologists promise you a better deal than the Christians, then boom — you’re an instant Scientologist?

    That’s the sort of “vast ignorance” Augustine was talking about, Sal.

  4. I feel somewhat like the guy who trusts the salesman’s promises.

    Having experienced the product sold as the love of God, one eagerly anticipates the joys of heaven. I’ve seen the brochure. What could go wrong?

  5. keiths: ETA: Speaking of which, I caught you quote mining again.

    That is exactly the same as when Creationists quote Darwin setting up the problem his then proposes a solution to.

    Fucking despicable. In this case Mung asks his question knowing it’s answered in the part of the quote he stripped off.

    Fucking despicable. But I guess he’s proud and Jesus is proud so it’s all good.

  6. Unfortunately, God’s “love” has weakened only slightly. Maximum sustained winds are still in excess of 180 mph.

  7. petrushka:
    I feel somewhat like the guy who trusts the salesman’s promises.

    Having experienced the product sold as the love of God, one eagerly anticipates the joys of heaven. I’ve seen the brochure. What could go wrong?

    I dunno, I think it’s a win-win situation. After enduring the suffering, you either get oblivion or an eternity of hallelujahs. On the whole I’d prefer the oblivion.

  8. Alan Fox: I dunno, I think it’s a win-win situation. After enduring the suffering, you either get oblivion or an eternity of hallelujahs. On the whole I’d prefer the oblivion.

    It is the third option that keeps many in the pews.

  9. Alan Fox,

    I dunno, I think it’s a win-win situation. After enduring the suffering, you either get oblivion or an eternity of hallelujahs. On the whole I’d prefer the oblivion.

    I guess it’s possible that Heaven or God are not precisely as portrayed. But then the potentially sinister thought emerges … in what way?

    I’d certainly convert on entering the Pearly Gates though (or distantly viewed through the flames). At least, I could hardly not become a believer.

  10. Allan,

    I’d certainly convert on entering the Pearly Gates though (or distantly viewed through the flames). At least, I could hardly not become a believer.

    What’s interesting is most Christians’ odd insistence that if you convert after death, it’s too late. You’re gonna burn.

    Why in heaven’s name (so to speak) would God take such an uncompromising, unloving stance? It’s the opposite of the attitude the father takes in the parable of the prodigal son.

  11. keiths,

    What’s interesting is most Christians’ odd insistence that if you convert after death, it’s too late. You’re gonna burn.

    Rather like the ‘out’ dependent upon timely repentance, gently mocked in Roddy Doyle’s Paddy Clarke ha ha ha:

    Robbing stuff out of shops was worse; magazines were more serious than sweets. Four million years for Football Monthly, two million for Goal and Football Weekly. If you made a good confession right before you died you didn’t have to go to Purgatory at all; you went straight up to heaven.

    — Even if the fella killed loads of people?
    — Even.
    It wasn’t fair.
    — Ah now; the same rules for everybody.

    […]

    My Granda Clarke was up there.

    — Are you sure? I asked my ma.
    — Yes, she said.
    — Is he out of Purgatory already?
    — Yes. He didn’t have to go to Purgatory because he made a good confession.
    — He was lucky, wasn’t he?

  12. I’m not sure my point has been understood. If you base your expectations of tradesmen and salesmen on past performance, one should worry about spending eternity at Heavenly Condos. I would anticipate reality to be more like Fawlty Towers.

    After all, the original creation was advertised as paradise, but included a predator that tortured and killed not only the residents, but all living things and their descendants forever. This glitch was hidden in lawyerly fine print, like the ten pages of a license agreement that no one reads.

    Just the fact that the breach of contract punished people and living things that didn’t participate in the transgression says that the objective all along was to inflict pain. It was foreseen, after all.

    So having witnessed this duplicity, people are standing in line to buy Release 2.0?

    Sorry about the “men” thing. But a loving mother would most likely be less of a shit. She would have made the kids feel real bad for about ten minutes and be done with it.

  13. petrushka,

    After all, the original creation was advertised as paradise, but included a predator […]

    And the tree. How did such a tree even get in there? I’m more reminded of Sauron’s basic stupidity, putting all his Power into a ring. What can go possibly wrong?

  14. petrushka:
    I’m not sure my point has been understood.

    I’ll test the hypothesis.

    If you base your expectations of tradesmen and salesmen on past performance, one should worry about spending eternity at Heavenly Condos. I would anticipate reality to be more like Fawlty Towers.

    But there’s no feedback from Heaven. Oblivion, eternal bliss, fiery furnace or stuck in a lift with other people? Anyone’s guess.

    After all, the original creation was advertised as paradise, but included a predator that tortured and killed not only the residents, but all living things and their descendants forever. This glitch was hidden in lawyerly fine print, like the ten pages of a license agreement that no one reads.

    Just the fact that the breach of contract punished people and living things that didn’t participate in the transgression says that the objective all along was to inflict pain. It was foreseen, after all.

    So having witnessed this duplicity, people are standing in line to buy Release 2.0?

    There, I don’t follow. We’ve no way to tell whether any of the after-life myths, whatever version, are true. To me, they look suspiciously like stories people have made up. If I’m wrong, I’m in for a bit of a toasting.

    Sorry about the “men” thing. But a loving mother would most likely be less of a shit. She would have made the kids feel real bad for about ten minutes and be done with it.

    Why not sell that story?

  15. Allan Miller:
    petrushka,

    And the tree. How did such a tree even get in there? I’m more reminded of Sauron’s basic stupidity, putting all his Power into a ring. What can go possibly wrong?

    Losing it was what got him in trouble!

  16. Remember, Sal, you’re the guy who told us, with a straight face, that you were a creationist because the creationists had offered you “a better deal” than the evolutionists.

    Better evidence relative to payoff. Atheists give me zero payoff with insufficient evidence.

    You want me to feed you the math again?

  17. stcordova,

    stcordova: Better evidence relative to payoff. Atheists give me zero payoff with insufficient evidence.

    Regarding whether you are in for bliss, toasting or oblivion in the after-life, there is no evidence whatsoever to support any outcome. I’m playing Pascal’s wager as if this life is all we have. Live in the moment!

    You want me to feed you the math again?

    Evidence is what’s needed.

  18. keiths: Interesting that you would choose to truncate my statement at that point…

    You’re utterly hilarious. I quote you asking me to explain why he [fmm] was quoting the Quran, I tell you it’s already been explained to you [so why should I] and you complain that you were asking me to explain [which is obvious to anyone] and then you bitch that I quote mined you for only including the part where you were asking me to explain.

    I’m not going to explain it to you because it’s already been explained to you and you ignored it when it was explained to you.

  19. Sal:

    Better evidence relative to payoff.

    No. Here’s what you wrote:

    So my rhetorical question in response is:

    What does it profit a man if gain the whole world of evolution, convinces himself he and monkeys are kissing cousins, but lose his own soul?

    And that is one reason I’m a creationist. The evolutionists could not give me a better deal for me and the human condition.

  20. Evidence is what’s needed.

    What would count as evidence for you? What counts as evidence for me obviously doesn’t count as evidence for you. But just to be clear, what would count as evidence for you?

  21. Pascal’s Wager demands an impossible strategy for someone not already in the tradition. ‘Believe there’s a demon behind this door, or it will gobble you up’. Huh?

  22. stcordova: What would count as evidence for you?What counts as evidence for me obviously doesn’t count as evidence for you.But just to be clear, what would count as evidence for you?

    As anyone will tell you, I don’t find hypotheticals helpful. Have you been talking to Mike Gene, lately, BTW? It’s his usual approach. You say you have evidence. Show me yours!

  23. Also, Sal,

    I do consider that human story telling is a sufficient explanation for religious myths. A story that didn’t reek of human imagination might be a candidate for evidence of a religious truth.

  24. keiths: Spin all you want, Mung.

    You utterly blew it when it came to interpreting FMM’s comment where he was quoting from the Quran. And you won’t even consider that you were wrong. Now from where I sit, that’s just damned funny. So yeah, spinning with laughter.

  25. Mung,
    Perhaps you could help me out. When people ask where I live, I never know whether to say “the south of France” (pretentious and misleading), “south-west France” (wrong, usually understood to be Gascony) or south-east France (wrong, refers to Provence). When I say Langued’oc, I’m soon to be wrong because our region has been renamed Occitanie.

  26. You say you have evidence. Show me yours!

    Astronaut Charles Duke healing a blind girl in Jesus name. You may think it a coincidence, but if I were the blind girl or Charles Duke, I’d be at little careful at offending a deity that provided an answer to prayer. If a skeptic wants to take that risk, that’s up to him.

    Extreme skepticism is a good quality in many cases but not all. If I had even a rumor of trouble about a bad storm, I would at least take some precaution. Some people were skeptical of the severity of Hurricane Katrina about 12 years ago in the USA. Long after the storm, I was down in Biloxi Mississippi and Bay St. Louis Mississippi where the center of the Hurricane landed. The locals there who fled told the story of some of their neighbors who refused to consider the dire warning of the weathermen. Their neighbors were convinced they knew better. Their neighbors stayed, the storm hit, and their bodies were never found….

    Even Richard Dawkins put his certainty of atheism at 6.9 at a scale of 1-7. That means he feels there is 1.4% chance there is a God. Let’s suppose this is the Christian God whom he so despises. Ok, 98.6% chance Dawkins is right, his payoff on an eternal time scale is 0. 1.4% chance Dawkins is wrong by his own estimation, so a 1.4% he roast for eternity. That’s not a good payoff. No atheist has ever justified to me that they are making a mathematically sound choice based on their own estimate of the odds and payoffs.

    What’s the basis for Dawkins’ atheism? Darwinism. Even by the admission of some of his own colleagues, Darwinism probably doesn’t explain the complexity of living systems. So his 98.6% belief is based on a flimsy scientific inference.

    I’ve provided evidence the fossil record is young. You all dismissed it even though no one here provided credible explanations for the anomalies presented.

    It’s one thing to say one is not convinced, but it’s not the same as saying there is zero evidence.

    If the fossil record were young, would that count as evidence for the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 and Matt 1? Would a youthful fossil record count as evidence of the Bible’s authenticity for you?

    Here is one my friends who is a physicist. You might have to rewind the movie to the start:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYyQ8l2OcBg&t=1710s

  27. Alan Fox: I’m soon to be wrong because our region has been renamed Occitanie.

    My suggestion would be to:

    a) ask keiths.
    b) poll a group of slow fourth-graders.

    If they both agree, you have your answer.

  28. stcordova,

    I’ve provided evidence the fossil record is young. You all dismissed it even though no one here provided credible explanations for the anomalies presented.

    Tripe. I’m not sure you know what ‘credible’ means. This has been discussed again and again. You just block your ears. Which, of course, is entirely to be expected when you’ve got a mental image of someone demonic prodding you with a toasting fork to concentrate the mind. C14 in coal? How widespread, what about the limestone in cyclothems, what about other isotopes, yadda yadda yadda.

  29. stcordova: Astronaut Charles Duke healing a blind girl in Jesus name. You may think it a coincidence, but if I were the blind girl or Charles Duke, I’d be at little careful at offending a deity that provided an answer to prayer. If a skeptic wants to take that risk, that’s up to him.

    That’s a bit random though. Why just the one? I’ve lost the sight of one eye. Could he help me? I’ll pay!

    Extreme skepticism is a good quality in many cases but not all. If I had even a rumor of trouble about a bad storm, I would at least take some precaution.Some people were skeptical of the severity of Hurricane Katrina about 12 years ago in the USA.Long after the storm, I was down in Biloxi Mississippi and Bay St. Louis Mississippi where the center of the Hurricane landed.The locals there who fled told the story of some of their neighbors who refused to consider the dire warning of the weathermen.Their neighbors were convinced they knew better. Their neighbors stayed, the storm hit, and their bodies were never found….

    There’s an old adage I heard a lot as a kid “God helps those as helps ’emselves”. Not sure how this anecdote works as evidence, though.

    Even Richard Dawkins put his certainty of atheism at 6.9 at a scale of 1-7.That means he feels there is 1.4% chance there is a God.Let’s suppose this is the Christian God whom he so despises.Ok, 98.6% chance Dawkins is right, his payoff on an eternal time scale is 0. 1.4% chance Dawkins is wrong by his own estimation, so a 1.4% he roast for eternity. That’s not a good payoff. No atheist has ever justified to me that they are making a mathematically sound choice based on their own estimate of the odds and payoffs.

    I’m not sure what Dawkins does differently with his little bit of uncertainty. I mean he’d need to pick a religion, first. I’m sure he’s not going to pick YEC!

    What’s the basis for Dawkins’ atheism?Darwinism.Even by the admission of some of his own colleagues, Darwinism probably doesn’t explain the complexity of living systems.So his 98.6% belief is based on a flimsy scientific inference.

    Apples and oranges. I claim science and religion are looking at different questions. Science answers “how” questions rather successfully. Religion tries to answer “why” less successfully.

    I’ve provided evidence the fossil record is young. You all dismissed it even though no one here provided credible explanations for the anomalies presented.

    YEC factual claims have no bearing on whether there is an afterlife. I don’t see the connection.

    It’s one thing to say one is not convinced, but it’s not the same as saying there is zero evidence.

    No indeed. And for me, so far, there is zero evidence of an afterlife in Heaven. It’s human invention. Nobody has come back to tell us.

    If the fossil record were young, would that count as evidence for the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 and Matt 1? Would a youthful fossil record count as evidence of the Bible’s authenticity for you?

    Don’t see why. It would just mean evolutionary theory was wrong or needed updating. “How” and “why” again.

    Here is one my friends who is a physicist. You might have to rewind the movie to the start:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYyQ8l2OcBg&t=1710s

    Give me a resumé.

  30. stcordova: Better evidence relative to payoff. Atheists give me zero payoff with insufficient evidence.

    You want me to feed you the math again?

    Yeah, what are the odds that Noah’s Flood occurred, or that God made life appear evolved?

    I think I’ll not worry overmuch about those chances.

    Glen Davidson

  31. Sal,

    You make the stupidest arguments. Here’s another one:

    Ok, 98.6% chance Dawkins is right, his payoff on an eternal time scale is 0. 1.4% chance Dawkins is wrong by his own estimation, so a 1.4% he roast for eternity.

    Really? You can’t conceive of any possibilities other than those two?

  32. Alan Fox,

    No indeed. And for me, so far, there is zero evidence of an afterlife in Heaven. It’s human invention. Nobody has come back to tell us.

    The evidence here is historical.

    YEC factual claims have no bearing on whether there is an afterlife. I don’t see the connection.

    YEC or OEC is evidence of creation. If that starts to become credible then the historical evidence may start to become credible. You are discounting the evidence up front without evaluation. I understand this because I used to be ” blind” to the evidence around us.

  33. Give me a resumé.

    https://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

    Allan Fox:

    Don’t see why. It would just mean evolutionary theory was wrong or needed updating

    That’s a faith statement, not a fact statement. You put your faith in Evolution, I put my faith Jesus.

    Why just the one? I’ve lost the sight of one eye. Could he help me? I’ll pay!

    Good question, and as Keiths was astute to point out, God could make belief in him really really easy by showing up and persuading everyone. My answer, not necessarily the right answer, is that we are the ones being put to the test and the great mystery isn’t why only some of us are save but rather why any of us are spared given God’s great wrath toward humanity.

    Perhaps, in the scheme of things, we are like cockroaches who can’t comprehend why the universe and all reality doesn’t revolve around their needs and wishes of how the universe ought to be.

  34. colewd:

    YEC or OEC is evidence of creation. If that starts to become credible then the historical evidence may start to become credible.

    That’s a big “if” and a big “may”, Billy.

  35. stcordova: . My answer, not necessarily the right answer, is that we are the ones being put to the test and the great mystery isn’t why only some of us are save but rather why any of us are spared given God’s great wrath toward humanity.

    If it works for you, good luck to you. I’m not trying to persuade you otherwise, just tossing in my view. I still think arguing over science vs religion is apples and oranges.

  36. Allan Miller:

    You just block your ears.

    Funny, I thought the same of you. You’re the one who said even if you saw an instance of special creation with your own eyes, it wouldn’t invalidate evolution for you. So how about two instances, how about 3, how about N instances?

    The more I’ve studied the matter of a young fossil record, the more promising it looks. In contrast the more I’ve studied various evolutionary theories the more absurd they look!

  37. stcordova: Perhaps, in the scheme of things, we are like cockroaches who can’t comprehend why the universe and all reality doesn’t revolve around their needs and wishes of how the universe ought to be.

    It’s ants on the sidewalk, oblivious of the Empire State Building! 🙂

  38. stcordova: The more I’ve studied the matter of a young fossil record, the more promising it looks. In contrast the more I’ve studied various evolutionary theories the more absurd they look!

    And has absolutely no bearing on the putative existence of gods.

  39. stcordova,

    Funny, I thought the same of you. You’re the one who said even if you saw an instance of special creation with your own eyes, it wouldn’t invalidate evolution for you.

    If you saw one instance of filling a bucket from a tap, would it invalidate all instances of buckets filling with rain? Equally stupid argument.

  40. colewd: YEC or OEC is evidence of creation. If that starts to become credible then the historical evidence may start to become credible.

    Yes, when IDists/creationists find their claims credible enough to do actual science–and then finally find evidence for once–maybe miracles will become believable.

    So far, we’ve never seen any IDist/creationist brave enough to do design science. Wells is probably as close as you’ll get, with his bizarre “turbine” hypothesis for centrioles. Naturally, it didn’t work out.

    Glen Davidson

  41. stcordova: The more I’ve studied the matter of a young fossil record, the more promising it looks. In contrast the more I’ve studied various evolutionary theories the more absurd they look!

    Yes, we’ve noticed how well you’ve “studied” it all.

    If you were on our side cherry-picking and using false dilemmas like you do, we’d try to get you to go to the other side.

    Glen Davidson

  42. GlenDavidson,

    Yeah, what are the odds that Noah’s Flood occurred, or that God made life appear evolved?

    At some level it does appear evolved from the progression of the fossil records. The biochemistry, however is telling us something very different.

  43. stcordova: Better evidence relative to payoff. Atheists give me zero payoff with insufficient evidence.

    You want me to feed you the math again?

    Unless the deity prefers honesty over calculation

  44. Alan:

    …good luck to you.

    Thanks old friend. Good luck to you too!

    FWIW, there was a time I was excited YEC and Christian theology were true.

    But as I pondered the issues, because of the issue of God’s wrath and the problem of malicious designs, more so than at any time in my life, at some level, I wish Keiths was right because that would mean most of humanity is spared from an angry wrathful God.

    I refer to a thread which brought colewd to our forum when was surfing the net once upon a time. The thread stated my sentiments then and which are my sentiments today:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-reasonableness-of-atheism-and-black-swans/

    The Reasonableness of Atheism and Black Swans

    As an ID proponent and creationist, the irony is that at the time in my life where I have the greatest level of faith in ID and creation, it is also the time in my life at some level I wish it were not true. I have concluded if the Christian God is the Intelligent Designer then he also makes the world a miserable place by design, that He has cursed this world because of Adam’s sin. See Malicious Intelligent Design.

    Jesus prophesied of the intelligently designed outcome of humanity: “wars and rumors of wars..famines…pestilence…earthquakes.” If there is nuclear and biological weapons proliferation, overpopulation, destruction of natural resources in the next 500 years or less, things could get ugly. If such awful things are Intelligently Designed for the trajectory of planet Earth, on some level, I think it would almost be merciful if the atheists are right….

    To paraphrase the Apostle Peter, if the bad stuff coming down on the planet is an example of God’s love for the Christians, think how bad his wrath will be on the non-Christians! 1 Pet 4:18

Leave a Reply