FMM throws Jesus under the bus

Posted on by

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. John Harshman: My confusion results from the fact that everything you have said so far about this vital living force applies to oxygen and to nothing else. What is the vital living force if it isn’t oxygen?

    It is that which gives form to matter and allows living substance to build and maintain form.

  3. CharlieM: It is that which gives form to matter and allows living substance to build and maintain form.

    I see that, realizing your attempt to convince us that Steiner is a profound thinker by quoting him has failed, your new tactic is to obfuscate. That isn’t working either. What makes you think that there’s something in oxygenated blood that gives form to matter but that’s absent from de-oxygenated blood?

  4. John, to Charlie:

    I see that, realizing your attempt to convince us that Steiner is a profound thinker by quoting him has failed, your new tactic is to obfuscate. That isn’t working either. What makes you think that there’s something in oxygenated blood that gives form to matter but that’s absent from de-oxygenated blood?

    Charlie,

    Is it starting to sink in that Steiner has you bamboozled? Are the disadvantages of your methodology beginning to dawn on you? Me read Steiner. Me like! Me want to believe. Me believe!

    Cultivate some critical thinking skills, fercrissakes.

  5. keiths:

    Does the following sentence make sense to you?

    God is love; therefore he slaughters children, drowns people (including those who love and worship him), and destroys their homes and possessions.

    Doesn’t that sentence cause just a wee bit of dissonance in your religion-addled brain?

    Mung:

    Nope.

    Good point. Cognitive dissonance requires at least enough intelligence to recognize when beliefs clash.

    You lack that intelligence, so you’re happy as a clam. Smarter believers (such as vjtorley) see the problem and grapple with it. Unsuccessfully.

  6. I think this thread would have been better titled :

    “Keiths Throws Keiths Under the Bus. Then Drives Over Himself.”

  7. …says phoodoo, who still hasn’t been able to articulate a coherent argument explaining why his loving God drowns people, including those love him and believe in him, and destroys their homes and possessions.

    I see tread marks on you, phoodoo.

  8. phoodoo:
    I think this thread would have been better titled :

    “Keiths Throws Keiths Under the Bus. Then Drives Over Himself.”

    “Keiths doesn’t believe in God for the good things. He only believes in God for the bad things”.
    Sounds familiar? Comedy club…lol

  10. keiths:
    Anyone out there who can help phoodoo out?

    I…
    Prove it that God is causing all the bad things you have mentioned…
    I’II catch you later! 😉

  11. J-Mac: “Keiths doesn’t believe in God for the good things. He only believes in God for the bad things”.
    Sounds familiar? Comedy club…lol

    J-Mac. Keths doesn’t believe in God full stop. You are the comedy club lol

  12. Timothy:

    Phoodoo, what is your obsession with whipped cream about?

    phoodoo:

    Its not my obsession, its keiths.

    Number of comments in which whipped cream, or some phoodooish misspelling of it, is mentioned by phoodoo:

    18

    Number of comments in which whipped cream, or some phoodooish misspelling of it, is mentioned by keiths:

    1, in response to phoodoo

    And still he can’t explain what his projected desire for whipped cream has to do with God’s drowning of the people he supposedly loves.

  14. Here’s Mother Teresa’s idea of a funny joke, delivered in an address to the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994:

    One day I met a lady who was dying of cancer in the most terrible condition. And I told her, I say, “You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus–a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you.” And she joined her hands together and said, “Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me.”

    Ha, ha. Get it? The woman was in agony and wanted it to stop, but Jesus wouldn’t stop kissing her. Ha ha. Hilarious.

  15. Here’s another crackpot Steiner quote to embarrass CharlieM:

    In the Negro the posterior brain is specially developed. That goes through the spinal cord and can work over all the light and warmth that is in him.

    Hence all that is connected with the body and metabolism is strongly developed in the Negro. He has, as one says, a strong desire-life, instinctive life. And since he actually has the sun-like, light and warmth, on the surface of his skin, his whole metabolism proceeds as if there were a cooking by the sun itself in his interior. Hence comes his desire-life. There is really a continuous cooking going on within him, and what stokes the fire is the posterior brain.

    Sometimes man’s organization throws off further byproducts. That is to be seen just in the Negro. The Negro not only has this cooking in his organism, it not only boils there, but he also has a frightfully crafty and observant eye. He peers craftily and very observantly. You can easily take this as a contradiction. But it is like this: If there in front is the nerve of the eye [see drawing], the nerves go just into the posterior brain; they cross there [see drawing]. The nerve goes into the posterior brain, and since that is specially developed in the Negro therefore he peeps out so craftily, is such a sly observer of the world. If one begins to understand the matter, it all becomes clear. But modern science does not make such studies as we do and so it knows nothing about these things.

    What do you think, Charlie? Do you agree with the Dear Leader on this topic?

  17. keiths: Anyone out there who can help phoodoo by providing an actual argument for him?

    oh look. keiths is trying to shift the burden of proof again. It’s your argument keiths, you can support it or not. So far you fail.

  18. keiths: Do any of you buy this idiotic rationalization of suffering from Mother Teresa?

    First you would need to understand Christianity, which you clearly don’t.

  20. keiths:

    Anyone out there who can help phoodoo by providing an actual argument for him?

    Mung:

    It’s your argument keiths, you can support it or not.

    I did. Where’s your counterargument?

    Is it “Children drown in hurricanes because Jesus is kissing them?” Does the kiss of Jesus bring death as well as intense suffering?

  21. keiths: Don’t be shy, Mung. Was that a “Yes, I actually do buy it”?

    First you would need to understand Christianity, which you clearly don’t.

  22. Mung buys it, but is ashamed to admit that.

    Shame seems to be one of the main “benefits” of being a Christian.

  23. keiths:
    Timothy:

    phoodoo:

    Number of comments in which whipped cream, or some phoodooish misspelling of it, is mentioned by phoodoo:

    Number of comments in which whipped cream, or some phoodooish misspelling of it, is mentioned by keiths:

    And still he can’t explain what his projected desire for whipped cream has to do with God’s drowning of the people he supposedly loves.

    Whipped Cream is not as safe Keiths.

    A French fitness and lifestyle blogger died after a can of whipped cream exploded and struck her chest.

    http://people.com/bodies/french-fitness-blogger-killed-by-exploding-can-of-whipped-cream/

    What kind of God would put it in a can that could kill you?

    whip cream
    when a person has cum all over their face and they go to wipe it off but miss the cum thats right under their nose leaving a cum mustache.
    Tommy was sucking my cock(haha) and I gave him some whip cream.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whip%20cream

  24. Christians,

    What about the rest of you? Do you think, as Mother Teresa and Mung do, that the kiss of Jesus is the kiss of suffering and death?

  25. keiths:
    Here’s another crackpot Steiner quote to embarrass CharlieM:

    What do you think, Charlie?Do you agree with the Dear Leader on this topic?

    Well I think its going off topic but I feel that I should respond although I’m not going to get into an involved discussion about it.

    Do you think it is necessary to believe everything Darwin said to believe in Darwinian evolution? Things that are considered unacceptable in our day would have seemed perfectly legitimate in the days of Darwin and of Steiner.

    Here is Darwin:
    The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex

    Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

    According to Steiner

    we must… understand clearly that the concept of race has ceased to have any meaning in our time.

    and

    In the sixth culture-epoch those who have accepted Spiritual Science will come out of every race, and will found, throughout the earth, a new culture no longer based on the concept of race — that concept will have lost its significance. In short, what is important in the world of Maya, the external world of space, vanishes away; we must learn to recognise this in the future course of our spiritual-scientific movement.

    I don’t really care that Steiner made sweeping generalisations about the different human races.

    Do you agree with Steiner that today it is more important for every person to be an individual in their own right rather than to be a member of a racial group or a nation or a particular sex or such like?

    Here is Rudolf Steiner on the errors of Darwinism and of anthroposophy

    It seems most peculiar that so many people pass by the question of the origin of the soul-nature simply because they fear that they might find themselves caught in an uncertain field of knowledge. They will be shown what the great scientist Carl Gegenbaur (see Note 2) has said about Darwinism. Even if the direct assertions of Darwin may not be entirely correct, yet they have led to discoveries which without them would not have been made. In a convincing manner Darwin has pointed to the evolution of one form of life out of another one, and this has stimulated the research into the relationships of such forms. Even those who contest the errors of Darwinism ought to realize that this same Darwinism has brought clarity and certainty to the research into animal and plant evolution, thus throwing light into dark reaches of the working of nature. Its errors will be overcome by itself. If it did not exist, we should not have its beneficial consequences. In regard to the spiritual life, the person who fears uncertainty concerning the anthroposophical conception ought to concede to it the same possibility; even though anthroposophical teachings were not completely correct, yet they would, out of their very nature, lead to the light concerning the riddles of the soul. To them, too, we shall owe clarity and certainty. And since they are concerned with our spiritual destiny, our human destination, our highest tasks, the bringing about of this clarity and certainty ought to be the most significant concern of our life. In this sphere, striving for knowledge is at the same time a moral necessity, an absolute moral duty.

  26. Charlie,

    I didn’t ask whether you thought it was acceptable in Steiner’s time to say such things.

    I asked:

    What do you think, Charlie? Do you agree with the Dear Leader on this topic?

  27. keiths,

    Keiths is doing more dodging, but he wants everyone else to play his made-up game.

    He continues to throw himself under his own bus.

  28. Charlie,

    Is it really that hard for you to admit that those two Steiner passages — one about tomatoes, the other about black people — are bullshit?

  30. keiths:
    Charlie,

    Is it really that hard for you to admit that those two Steiner passages — one about tomatoes, the other about black people — are bullshit?

    Are you afraid to generalise about the differences between human races? Would you agree that the modern scientific age and cultural renaissance originated in Europe or on the other hand black Africans are statistically superior athletes to their white counterparts?

    Of course this does not mean that we can apply these facts to individuals. I would say I am of fairly average intelligence and have no particular sporting prowess and there are countless numbers of blacks who are far more intelligent than me. It is impossible to tell someone’s physical or mental abilities from the colour of their skin or the race they belong to. In today’s multicultural society I do not think that there is any connection between someone’s racial history and their intelligence.

  31. Charlie,

    Again we have the spectacle of you, a grown man, avoiding a simple question…

    What do you think, Charlie? Do you agree with the Dear Leader on this topic?

    …and being unable to acknowledge that your Dear Leader got tomatoes, and black people, badly wrong. Your devotion to Steiner borders on the pathological.

    As I said:

    You’re a cultist, Charlie. You can’t bear to see the Dear Leader challenged or mocked, and you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge even the most obvious and ridiculous of his errors.

    Just like a Scientologist defending L. Ron Hubbard.

  32. For the convenience of readers, here are the two Steiner passages again.

    First the tomato passage:

    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.

  33. And here’s the passage about black people:

    In the Negro the posterior brain is specially developed. That goes through the spinal cord and can work over all the light and warmth that is in him.

    Hence all that is connected with the body and metabolism is strongly developed in the Negro. He has, as one says, a strong desire-life, instinctive life. And since he actually has the sun-like, light and warmth, on the surface of his skin, his whole metabolism proceeds as if there were a cooking by the sun itself in his interior. Hence comes his desire-life. There is really a continuous cooking going on within him, and what stokes the fire is the posterior brain.

    Sometimes man’s organization throws off further byproducts. That is to be seen just in the Negro. The Negro not only has this cooking in his organism, it not only boils there, but he also has a frightfully crafty and observant eye. He peers craftily and very observantly. You can easily take this as a contradiction. But it is like this: If there in front is the nerve of the eye [see drawing], the nerves go just into the posterior brain; they cross there [see drawing]. The nerve goes into the posterior brain, and since that is specially developed in the Negro therefore he peeps out so craftily, is such a sly observer of the world. If one begins to understand the matter, it all becomes clear. But modern science does not make such studies as we do and so it knows nothing about these things.

  34. Now imagine someone reading either of those two passages and being unable to say “that’s bullshit.”

    Behold CharlieM.

    Completely in thrall to the Dear Leader.

  35. Meanwhile, God is still at his “loving” best:

    Hurricane Maria ‘devastates’ Dominica: Prime Minister

    The Prime Minister posted this on Facebook:

    Initial reports are of widespread devastation. So far we have lost all what money can buy and replace.

    My greatest fear for the morning is that we will wake to news of serious physical injury and possible deaths as a result of likely landslides triggered by persistent rains.

    So far the winds have swept away the roofs of almost every person I have spoken to or otherwise made contact with. The roof to my own official residence was among the first to go and this apparently triggered an avalanche of torn-away roofs in the city and the countryside.

    Come tomorrow morning we will hit the road, as soon as the all-clear is given, in search of the injured and those trapped in the rubble.

    I am honestly not preoccupied with physical damage at this time, because it is devastating … indeed, mind-boggling. My focus now is in rescuing the trapped and securing medical assistance for the injured.

    We will need help, my friend, we will need help of all kinds.

  36. Christians,

    You may scoff, as I do, at Charlie’s blind and cultish devotion to Rudolf Steiner, but consider this: Your own clinging to the notion of a powerful and loving God is just as ridiculous, in the face of all this hurricane devastation, as Charlie’s unwillingness to contradict the Dear Leader.

  37. keiths: Your own clinging to the notion of a powerful and loving God is just as ridiculous, in the face of all this hurricane devastation, as Charlie’s unwillingness to contradict the Dear Leader.

    Is that supposed to be another of your famous arguments? Because it doesn’t look like an argument to me. It looks to me like you’re preaching to an audience of one.

    Here’s an idea. Take your message to the Caribbean and preach it there.

  38. Mung,

    Here’s an idea. Take your message to the Caribbean and preach it there.

    You’re the one who should be doing that, and sharing in the love that God is lavishing on the people there. Tell them that Jesus is kissing them, and see how grateful they are for that bit of wisdom.

    Not so eager to share the good news, are you? Or to be “kissed” by Jesus yourself.

  41. Kiss. Kiss. Judas. You’re just too unfamiliar with Christian literature to get it. Perhaps you should read more of the bible.

    Why isn’t your concept of God derived from the totality of the evidence? Why do you zero in on one single verse and try to come up with a doctrine of God based on that one single verse?

    Those are rhetorical questions.

  43. Timothy:
    I see God is demonstrating his love to the people of Mexico City right now as well.

    But don’t you see how this just highlights the emptiness of keiths whole point? Every time someone dies somewhere people like keiths and company are going to say, “Look, look, God doesn’t love you, people died!” or even “God doesn’t love you people lost some possessions.”

    Yes, people are not immortal. Does this also mean God doesn’t love you? If you say yes, that also means he doesn’t love people, then one of your demands for a loving God with choices is immortality. And then the list just continues from there. people shouldn’t be able to die. people shouldn’t be able to lose possessions. People shouldn’t have heartache. People shouldn’t have to work hard. People shouldn’t get hurt when they fall of a cliff. People should never feel sick.

    This is is the only way to satisfy the demands of those who claim that every time something unfortunate happens, it counts as more proof that there isn’t a God.

    If you unwrap the argument deep enough, one can easily see that it is a very facile and unsophisticated point of view. It sounds great to people who don’t think about it very deeply, and I am sure to someone like Keiths he believes he has really uncovered some brilliant ideas. But he is a child arguing with adults who have thought about it more than ten seconds.

  45. I’ve avoided this thread due to an intense dislike of theodicy, but for those who like that kind of thing, I wanted to bring to your attention two rather good books that I do recommend:

    Evil in Modern Thought. Neiman argues that modern philosophy — both theological and secular — underwent a major revolution in how we think about evil. These philosophers invented the distinction between moral evil and natural evil, posed the question as to whether evil can be understood without a belief in God, and argued about how to make sense of the Holocaust.

    The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking About God Went Wrong. Placher argues that pre-modern theologians like Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin had a very different understanding of divine transcendence (and related concepts) than their modern heirs. The turning point was the demand that our talk about God always make complete and literal sense, rather than resort to metaphors or analogies. Placher argues that this demand has seriously distorted our understanding of Scripture.

    (One interesting thing I learned from Placher: before the rise of the demand for literal meaning, no one thought that “the Word of God” referred to the Bible itself. They understood, rather, that “the Word of God” referred to the person of Jesus Christ.)

    As you were.

  46. Mung,

    Kiss. Kiss. Judas.

    If that’s what you were trying to say, you should have put ‘Judas’ in your response. Something like:

    No, Judas, you’re the one who’s supposed to kiss Jesus.

    Sigh. Mung is as bad at put-downs as he is at defending his faith.

  48. Kantian Naturalist: The turning point was the demand that our talk about God always make complete and literal sense, rather than resort to metaphors or analogies. Placher argues that this demand has seriously distorted our understanding of Scripture.

    I agree with that. To me it seems rather obvious.

    But then you have people like Sal and VJ.

  49. phoodoo,

    This is is the only way to satisfy the demands of those who claim that every time something unfortunate happens, it counts as more proof that there isn’t a God.

    That isn’t my argument, nor is it the argument of anyone else here, as far as I can tell.

    I repeat: That is not my argument.

    I realize that you want it to be my argument. You’re eager for that to be my argument. You’re drooling over the hope that it’s my argument. You can stamp your feet all day long and insist that it’s my argument.

    But that is not my argument.

    Woodbine, Timothy and I have explained this to you repeatedly. You look ridiculous trying to defeat an argument that we are not making, while leaving the actual argument unrefuted.

    Get a clue, phoodoo.

Leave a Reply