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,

    If its not a slippery slope keiths, then all you have to do is say which decisions you want God to make for you, and which decisions you want to make for yourself-simple right?

    But you are scared shitless to do that.

  2. Woodbine: 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 then I guess, if we knew that God was always going to flick bullets away then we just wouldn’t bother trying to shoot people anymore and then what kind of world would that be??

  3. I mean, I get the idea that God might want us to be free to make our own decisions and deal with the consequences of our own actions etc. But child cancer? Tsunamis? Come on God!

  4. phoodoo,

    A big part of the problem is that you simply aren’t able to formulate a coherent argument. State your assumptions and then show us a chain of reasoning, in which each step follows from earlier ones or from your assumptions, leading to the conclusion that

    Therefore, a loving God must drown children in tsunamis.

    That’s how grownups do it.

    If you can’t provide such an argument, and you can’t quote someone else who has provided such an argument, then face facts: you don’t actually have an argument. All you’ve got is a vague intuition that there’s some slippery slope problem that you can’t quite put your finger on.

  5. keiths: Hence the far-fetched attempts to blame natural disasters on the Fall, so that they’re the fault of humans, not God.

    Huh? Where does the bible ever say any such thing?

  6. keiths: A big part of the problem is that you simply aren’t able to formulate a coherent argument. State your assumptions and then show us a chain of reasoning, in which each step follows from earlier ones or from your assumptions…

    The Irony.

    Is that how you decided that the Christian God did not forgive Adam and Eve?

  7. keiths:

    Hence the far-fetched attempts to blame natural disasters on the Fall, so that they’re the fault of humans, not God.

    Mung:

    Huh? Where does the bible ever say any such thing?

    Read my sentence again, looking for the word “Bible”:

    Hence the far-fetched attempts to blame natural disasters on the Fall, so that they’re the fault of humans, not God.

    Not there, is it?

    Derp.

  8. Timothy: But then I guess, if we knew that God was always going to flick bullets away then we just wouldn’t bother trying to shoot people anymore and then what kind of world would that be??

    Exactly.

    That’s why I’ve given up trying to kill people with my long-range psychic powers; God has, in his infinite wisdom, so arranged the laws of the Universe to nip that kind of thing in the bud.

    And yet this direct assault on my freedom to psychically kill people goes un-remarked by those people who insist a moral Universe can only function with a non-interventionist God.

  9. keiths: Read my sentence again, looking for the word “Bible”:

    Right. But most Christians get their ideas from the bible don’t they? But I guess for you, it’s better that you can ignore what the the bible dose or doesn’t say on a subject. That way you can’t be called on it. Like your claim that the Christian God refused to forgive Adam and Eve. That also didn’t come from the bible, did it?

    So,. make up stuff that doesn’t come from the bible … Is that step one in your strategy to confuse Christians?

  10. Woodbine: God has, in his infinite wisdom, so arranged the laws of the Universe to nip that kind of thing in the bud.

    Not true. It just takes longer than you think. And you have to try harder. Don’t blame God for your laziness.

  11. Mung,

    Don’t you have any curiosity about what your fellow Christians believe?

    It staggers me that you could you go this long without discovering that many Christians blame natural evils on the Fall. It is not a rare belief at all.

  12. From my very first search result (Focus on the Family):

    But what about natural evil? Couldn’t there be less suffering? Why doesn’t God stop things like earthquakes and tsunamis? Again, this ties into the broad Christian explanation of the human predicament. Paradise has been lost due to human moral shortcomings. As a result, we live in a fallen world, east of Eden. As a result, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Romans 8:22, NIV).

    [emphasis added]

    Go ahead. Try to tell us that Focus on the Family isn’t a Christian organization.

    As a bonus, they also use the dreaded “all loving” phrase:

    Fortunately, Lewis came to grips with his grief and in the end realized that God not only exists, but that He is indeed all loving despite our sufferings.

    [emphasis added]

    Are you getting the vapors?

    Come on, Mung. Crawl out of your cave once in a while and see what your fellow Christians are thinking.

  13. And Mung,

    Are you actually unaware that Dembski wrote an entire frikkin’ book arguing that the Fall was retroactive, in an attempt to reconcile all evil — including natural evil before the existence of humans — with God’s goodness?

  14. You only have to Google the phrase ‘all loving’ and the list is populated almost entirely with God links (and Bon Jovi).

    Even William Lane Craig thinks God is all loving (FMM disagrees presumably).

    All this seems like news to Mung.

  15. John Harshman:

    CharlieM: 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

    Steiner from the lecture

    Human life renews itself continually out of the blood…When the blood has deposited the life-awakening substances on the bodily organs, then it carries the life-destroying forces up again to the heart and lungs. What flows back into the lungs is poisonous to life and makes life continually perish.

    Growth and decay are processes which are constantly taking place within our bodies. Look at the skin and other organs such as the liver and you will find strong growth forces, forces which are life building. Compare this with the brain and central nervous system, In these organs life destroying processes dominate. Just think how much oxygenated blood it takes to maintain the brain compared to other organs. Neurons are not known for their regenerative powers but the brain is known to be the seat of conscious thinking.

    I’m not asking you to believe what Steiner says, only to give him a fair hearing and to think a little about what he is saying.

  16. CharlieM,

    Here’s another Steiner passage for you to interpret for us:

    Tomatoes have no desire to step outside of themselves, no desire to step outside the realm of strong vitality. That’s where they want to stay. They are the least social beings in the entire plant kingdom. They do not want anything from strangers, and above all, they do not want any fertilizer that has gone through a composting process; they reject all that. This is the reason that they can influence what works independently within the human or animal organism.

    “Tomatoes have no desire to step outside of themselves…”

    OK, Rudolf, but I certainly had a desire to step outside of myself while reading that bit of lunacy.

  17. CharlieM: I’m not asking you to believe what Steiner says, only to give him a fair hearing and to think a little about what he is saying.

    What you quoted is nonsense. That’s a fair enough hearing.

  18. John Harshman: What you quoted is nonsense. That’s a fair enough hearing.

    Well I can’t argue with your statement because you do not provide any accompanying explanation as to why you think that it is nonsense.

  19. Mung: That was the Israelite God. Keiths doesn’t complain about him.

    Mung: 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.

    Never understood why someone would fight over the bloody , torn up clothes of a poor Jewish carpenter.

  20. keiths: Don’t you have any curiosity about what your fellow Christians believe?

    Well, let’s see. How much time do I spend fixated on what my fellow Christians here at TSZ believe? Any thoughts on that keiths?

  21. keiths: It staggers me that you could you go this long without discovering that many Christians blame natural evils on the Fall. It is not a rare belief at all.

    I am not one of them. And I don’t know that FMM is one of them, nor do I even know if phoodoo is a Christian.

    Why don’t you share with me how you know what phoodoo and fifth believe about the consequences of the fall.

    And I’ll let you in on another secret. I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were created to be immortal. So you’d be better off not assuming anything.

  22. keiths: Crawl out of your cave once in a while and see what your fellow Christians are thinking.

    What is wrong with you? You know, or ought to know, that I reject a lot of popular Christian beliefs. That means that I know what they are. You’re not going to convince me of anything based on what some other Christian or group of Christians believes.

    As you know, I don’t believe in a literal lake of fire. And I don’t believe the myth that Jesus is going to return any day now. Why don’t you become a Christian and join me. 🙂

    The keiths and Mung show

  23. Woodbine: Even William Lane Craig thinks God is all loving (FMM disagrees presumably).

    All this seems like news to Mung.

    I no more know what they mean by “all loving” than I know what the term omni-loving means. phoodoo has been trying for months to draw keiths out as to what he thinks an all loving God would allow or not allow.

    You guys are incredible. It occurs to me that you’re Idealists and or Rationalists. All your reasoning is a priori. Why not look at the world and then from what is seen attempt to reason about what is unseen, rather than going about it the other way around?

  24. newton: Never understood why someone would fight over the bloody , torn up clothes of a poor Jewish carpenter.

    🙂

    What I’d like to know is how they knew that thousands of years in the future those clothing fragments would be so valuable.

  25. Mung: You guys are incredible. It occurs to me that you’re Idealists and or Rationalists. All your reasoning is a priori. Why not look at the world and then from what is seen attempt to reason about what is unseen, rather than going about it the other way around?

    We are looking at the world and reasoning from our observations, Mung. There’s nothing a priori about it.

    And what we observe is a large percentage of the human race who see exactly the same horrors we do, but will insist on the basis of visions, sacred texts, miracles and all sorts of intellectually vacuous garbage, that there is an infinitely loving entity at the helm.

    No-one in their right mind would survey the world and conclude there was an infinitely loving God in charge – that is, unless they believed their future depended on it.

  26. CharlieM:

    Human life renews itself continually out of the blood…When the blood has deposited the life-awakening substances on the bodily organs, then it carries the life-destroying forces up again to the heart and lungs. What flows back into the lungs is poisonous to life and makes life continually perish.

    Growth and decay are processes which are constantly taking place within our bodies. Look at the skin and other organs such as the liver and you will find strong growth forces, forces which are life building. Compare this with the brain and central nervous system, In these organs life destroying processes dominate. Just think how much oxygenated blood it takes to maintain the brain compared to other organs. Neurons are not known for their regenerative powers but the brain is known to be the seat of conscious thinking.

    I’m not asking you to believe what Steiner says, only to give him a fair hearing and to think a little about what he is saying.

    Why would you want a fair hearing? It’s ridiculous to say that what flows back into the lungs is poisonous to life and makes it perish. CO2 is life-giving to plants, and even we do badly to breathe out too much CO2. Hyperventilation increases pH overmuch by eliminating more CO2 than appropriate. We do best with some CO2, but, of course, not too much–breathing out too little CO2 reduces pH excessively.

    I have no idea how the liver and skin have strong growth forces, and the brain does not. It’s mostly true that brain cells are not replaced when they die in the adult brain, but clearly a great deal of growth and repair occurs in the brain throughout most of life, connections in particular being able to regrow. Anyway, it’s not clear what a “strong growth force” would be.

    What flows to the lungs does not make life continually perish. CO2 is just a metabolic product that has to be vented. Almost anything can become excessive if simply allowed to build up.

    Glen Davidson

  27. John Harshman:

    CharlieM: 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.

    Well, since you have that understanding, you can probably explain it to us. Go ahead. How do you resolve the problem?

    keiths: Seconded. And be sure to tell us why your explanation is superior to this one:

    Just accept that God doesn’t exist, or that if he does exist, he’s not powerful and loving. It makes perfect sense, and it fits the evidence.

    There are spiritual powers which are in opposition to Christ as is made clear in the New Testament which tells of His temptation in the desert. These beings have power to influence events in this temporal material world but they are unable to have any power over Christ in the spiritual reality. So you are correct when you argue that Christ have given up some power over this material reality, but He still retains His power where it matters in the higher spiritual reality.

    I would say that my explanation is superior because it takes into account the testaments of many great initiates over the centuries, whereas your account takes only your own personal awareness into account. You cannot see how there can be any higher reality simply because you are unaware of it. This makes reality dependent on your personal view which you believe to be all encompassing.

  28. Woodbine: We are looking at the world and reasoning from our observations, Mung. There’s nothing a priori about it.

    No, it’s quite clear that you’re starting with the assumption that God is “omni-loving.” That’s a priori. You’re not arriving at that premise by looking at the world.

  29. keiths:

    Tomatoes have no desire to step outside of themselves

    OK, Rudolf, but I certainly had a desire to step outside of myself while reading that bit of lunacy.

    As Steiner himself said in the lecture that this quote is taken from, some farmers

    will say, “What a pity he has suddenly gone crazy!”

    But do you actually know what results have been achieved by following Steiner’s agricultural advice, no matter how crazy it sounds?

  30. GlenDavidson: Why would you want a fair hearing? It’s ridiculous to say that what flows back into the lungs is poisonous to life and makes it perish. CO2 is life-giving to plants, and even we do badly to breathe out too much CO2. Hyperventilation increases pH overmuch by eliminating more CO2 than appropriate. We do best with some CO2, but, of course, not too much–breathing out too little CO2 reduces pH excessively.

    I have no idea how the liver and skin have strong growth forces, and the brain does not. It’s mostly true that brain cells are not replaced when they die in the adult brain, but clearly a great deal of growth and repair occurs in the brain throughout most of life, connections in particular being able to regrow. Anyway, it’s not clear what a “strong growth force” would be.

    What flows to the lungs does not make life continually perish. CO2 is just a metabolic product that has to be vented. Almost anything can become excessive if simply allowed to build up.

    I am not talking about CO2 outwith the context of it’s environment. Do you not think if the only blood that circulated within you was blue blood that it would destroy your life?

  31. CharlieM,

    I have subdivided that Steiner passage into numbered “verses”. For each of them, could you tell us

    a) whether you believe the “verse” is true; and
    b) why or why not?

    Here’s the passage:

    1) Tomatoes have no desire to step outside of themselves,

    2) no desire to step outside the realm of strong vitality.

    3) That’s where they want to stay.

    4) They are the least social beings in the entire plant kingdom.

    5) They do not want anything from strangers,

    6) and above all, they do not want any fertilizer that has gone through a composting process; they reject all that.

    7) This is the reason that they can influence what works independently within the human or animal organism.

  32. CharlieM: I am not talking about CO2 outwith the context of it’s environment. Do you not think if the only blood that circulated within you was blue blood that it would destroy your life?

    In order to discuss/answer your question you will have to explain what you mean when you say ‘blue blood’. Are you talking about hemocyanin?

  33. GlenDavidson: CO2 is just a metabolic product that has to be vented.

    Without CO2 there is also the very real problem of getting the oxygen ‘unstuck’ from the hemoglobin. The localized acidification (from the metabolic waste product CO2) is quite important for the delivery of oxygen. Something to do with Bohr and his shift/effect I do believe.

  34. CharlieM: I am not talking about CO2 outwith the context of it’s environment. Do you not think if the only blood that circulated within you was blue blood that it would destroy your life?

    Do you think that getting rid of all of the CO2 in the blood would be beneficial, since supposedly it’s a poison?

    Glen Davidson

  35. keiths:
    CharlieM,

    I have subdivided that Steiner passage into numbered “verses”.For each of them, could you tell us

    a) whether you believe the “verse” is true; and
    b) why or why not?

    Here’s the passage:

    Sorry but I don’t know tomatoes well enough to answer any of these questions.

  36. Sorry but I don’t know tomatoes well enough to answer any of these questions.

    So as far as you’re concerned, the jury’s still out on whether tomatoes “desire to step outside of themselves” or “want anything from strangers”?

    You crack me up, Charlie.

  37. PeterP: In order to discuss/answer your question you will have to explain what you mean when you say ‘blue blood’.Are you talking about hemocyanin?

    No. I am talking about the blood as Steiner talked about it. By “blue blood” he meant the de-oxygenated blood flowing in the veins and the pulmonary artery. Whether it is actually blue is beside the point.

  38. keiths: So as far as you’re concerned, the jury’s still out on whether tomatoes “desire to step outside of themselves” or “want anything from strangers”?

    You crack me up, Charlie.

    Just like anyone who believes in a spiritual reality cracks you up I suppose.

  39. Charlie,

    Just like anyone who believes in a spiritual reality cracks you up I suppose.

    No. There are plenty of people who believe in a spiritual reality, yet are still capable of recognizing when someone is raving idiotically about tomatoes.

    Steiner reminds me of L. Ron Hubbard in many ways, including by virtue of his goofy beliefs about tomatoes:

  40. Charlie,

    Are you such a true believer that you can’t admit it when Steiner is obviously bullshitting, as he does in that passage about tomatoes?

  41. Steiner:

    1) Tomatoes have no desire to step outside of themselves,

    2) no desire to step outside the realm of strong vitality.

    3) That’s where they want to stay.

    4) They are the least social beings in the entire plant kingdom.

    5) They do not want anything from strangers,

    6) and above all, they do not want any fertilizer that has gone through a composting process; they reject all that.

    7) This is the reason that they can influence what works independently within the human or animal organism.

    CharlieM:

    Sorry but I don’t know tomatoes well enough to answer any of these questions [about whether Steiner was right].

    Well, then I guess you’ll have to consult a textbook on tomato psychology.

  42. L. Ron Hubbard was a fraud who would have been better sticking to science fiction.

    Steiner was the founder of anthroposophy which is a consistent and logical science of the spirit. He always stressed that nobody should take on faith the truth of anything that he said. Individuals should investigate matters for themselves and come to their own conclusions regarding anything he said.

    I can understand and accept that you find his words to be nonsense. I could explain why I am not so quick to judge his views as being nonsense but it would take us too deep into anthroposophy and I’m not sure that it is worth the effort.

  43. CharlieM: No. Why would I think that?

    Are you then of the opinion that CO2 is not a poison in the blood?

    If not then what is all this supposed to be about:

    What flows back into the lungs is poisonous to life and makes life continually perish.

    I do think it matters when discussing issues that accuracy is quite important and it matters greatly when someone makes an assertion about blood being ‘blue’ when it is never blue……outside of those critters that use different oxygen carrying pigments other than iron.

Leave a Reply