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.
Timothy:
Mung:
Jesus is kissing them. Perhaps it’s foreplay, in preparation for really fucking them over.
And you’ll go on idiotically insisting that if God is love, no one dies. And yet central to the very message of Christianity is a figure who suffers in an agonizing way and dies. Your view is twisted. A caricature. It’s impossible to take it seriously. So I don’t.
At least go learn something about Christianity.
“Why God, Oh why, if you love us, would you kill a man at 146 years old? What kind of craven bastard would do that to people he loves? You could have prevented it, but you don’t love Indonesians. No, you must not exist, no loving God would have allowed him to die.”
Keiths, Sept 19, 2017 (basically).
Yes. That’s another reason I laugh at keiths. It shows how off-base he is.
See my comment to phoodoo above. That is not my argument, no matter how much you wish it were.
Right. It’s not that you’re dense. You talk about Jesus kissing people and I talk about a man that kisses Jesus, and you are totally clueless about the obvious allusion to Judas Iscariot. Your finest hour.
But isn’t this just a version of the “God is mysterious” argument? Yes, metaphors and analogies can be powerful ways to communicate. But the thing is Christians do treat God as a literal being that does things in the world.
Mung, to KN:
Come on, Mung. If even a goofball like you has read the beginning of the Gospel of John, do you really think I haven’t?
My view is that we cannot talk about God in a literal sense, that the only way we can talk about God is in mystery, metaphor, allegory, analogy.
Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture
The closest we could come in a literal sense is Jesus Christ.
Oh, sure, many do. I wasn’t disputing that. Neither is Placher, and he’s a theologian. His point was rather that there’s something really problematic — in terms of theology, biblical hermeneutics, and apologetics — with doing so. He’s very critical of modern Protestantism!
Sure. Whatever you say.
So for you it’s not the dead that matter, it’s the missing.
Is so.
Is so.
If it’s not your argument, why do you keep repeating it?
No, we’ve been getting it all wrong all along. It’s the fact that people are MISSING that counts against God’s love, not the fact that people died.
phoodoo,
Just to hammer the point home, the “counterargument” you are offering would be appropriate if I were saying something like this:
That is not the argument.
Reasonable unless you are requiring Him to do things in a literal sense
An earlier comment that bears repeating:
I’m still waiting for one of the believers to say something that actually sort of makes sense, like this:
Perhaps keiths will discover just how close to God he really is when he does his OP on divine simplicity.
keiths,
Just to hammer the point home, you don’t have an argument, remember? You have a complaint.
Your complaint is that in order for you to say that God isn’t loving, you have to say what a loving God would do, and you of course refuse to do that.
“Why oh why is a 146 year old man from Indonesia not worthy of your love Lord, why didn’t you save him, aren’t you omnipotent…”
Is so.
Tell us how you really feel. 🙂
#BigotsUnite
Mung,
It’s just the logical extension of Mother Teresa’s so-called “joke”:
The poor woman was being “kissed” by Jesus. She wanted him to stop. He wouldn’t. He kept forcing himself on her against her will.
Mother Teresa’s obscene version of Jesus sounds a lot like Donald Trump:
All that yelling an moaning you do. I think I understand now. Jesus loves you. Stop resisting.
phoodoo,
This has been explained to you again and again. My argument does not depend on every detail of what a loving God would and would not do.
It’s very simple. A loving human wouldn’t drown the people he or she loved, or destroy their homes and possessions. Your God does that routinely, along with many other horrible things that no loving human would do.
Your God doesn’t even rise to the level of a loving human. No wonder you’re ashamed.
keiths
It has been explained to you again and again and again and again, yes it does.
Perhaps you are not capable of learning. Or maybe its a choice, and you don’t like choice, we know. If there is only whip cream, you don’t have to choose. Then you won’t blame God because he lets old men in Indonesia die, or let’s dog gets lice.
keiths:
phoodoo:
It hasn’t been explained to me. You’ve simply asserted it.
Cough up an explanation. Or don’t, and we’ll laugh at you for having failed again.
It hasn’t been explained to me, it has been asserted by you, because you don’t understand your own argument.
You are stuck under the bus.
phoodoo,
Then show us precisely where my argument (and not your mangled version of it) depends on specifying every detail of what a loving God would and would not do.
Quotes, please.
phoodoo,
If you loved someone, would you purposely trap them under the rubble of a collapsed building?
Or make buildings at all? Or make people at all. Maybe if God loved you he would just make blocks of rubber and be done with it.
Why do you find it so hard to finish your thoughts?
No keiths, actual evidence was provided to you. And you ignored it, like you always do. If it fails to match up with your narrative it’s like it doesn’t exist. now tell us, is that rational?
Readers,
Observe. The believer, phoodoo, is not only afraid to answer questions about what his God does — he’s even afraid to answer a simple question about what he would do:
It’s glorious to be a believer. With God on your side, you can run away from all sorts of questions. Impressive.
Why do you keep moving the goalposts? First it was that God kills people. Then it was that people go missing. Now it’s people trapped in rubble.
For all you know being trapped in rubble is what is currently keeping them alive. Would you rather they just died?
A whopping sample size of one!
hilarious
Yeah, God sent the earthquake to protect them. Now that they’re buried under rubble, the falling meteors can’t get to them.
Mung, your incompetence is astounding.
Just a reminder, as an experiment, this thread is a rules-free area.
And so Alan invents yet another rule.
Go and resign already, Alan.
A further comment on Alan’s childish move.
I am just wondering, does anyone ever follow keiths pointless links?
I check to see if he’s just referring us to something he wrote himself.
phoodoo,
If you loved someone, would you purposely trap them under the rubble of a collapsed building? Or drown them? Or drive them from their home and destroy their possessions?
Your supposedly loving God does that. Why?
If you loved someone, would you let them live in a building, that might one day collapse?
If you loved someone, would you let them live, knowing one day they might die?
phoodoo,
Yes, and in fact I do. The people I love all live in buildings that might someday collapse, yet I’m not urging them to move out. Why? Because I don’t know that the buildings are going to collapse (unlike your God), and the likelihood of collapse is sufficiently low. The benefits of living in buildings outweigh the risks.
If I knew that a building was going to collapse, and I knew exactly when, would I let the people I love stay there at that time? Of course not! What kind of unloving monster would do that? Oh yeah, that’s right — your God would.
Once again, yes. I do that already. What, you think I should go around killing everyone I love because they’re going to die eventually anyway? Think, phoodoo.
OK, I answered your questions. It’s time for you to stop avoiding mine.
keiths,
See, I told you you don’t want choices.
I answered phoodoo’s questions. He ran from mine.
Believers, it’s easy enough to laugh at phoodoo’s “courageous” performance. But stop and ask yourselves: “Could I answer those questions?”
Here they are again:
If you loved someone, would you purposely trap them under the rubble of a collapsed building? Or drown them? Or drive them from their home and destroy their possessions?
Your supposedly loving God does that. Why?
And if you can’t answer those questions sensibly — and you can’t, of course — then why are you a believer? Why believe in a powerful, loving God when the evidence shows that God, if he exists at all, is not the powerful and loving God you want him to be?
This guy reminds me of phoodoo, except that he doesn’t mention whipped cream:
Believers, what is wrong with your God?
From the Weather Channel:
Meanwhile, the death toll from the earthquake in Mexico is 250 and rising.
To those of you who are not questioning your belief in a powerful and loving God: Why not?
Because we have better things to do with our time. God has demonstrated his power and love to me. Why would I question my belief?
God will demonstrate his power and love to you too, if you’ll let him.
Straight from the “Fuck you, got mine” branch of Christianity.
Forget the children God slaughtered….he loves Mung, that’s what counts!
Woodbine:
Exactly.
Mung:
Yeah, why let the evidence spoil such a nice fantasy?