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. Alan,

    Can you be more specific. How do you submit an immaterial soul to torment. What is there to torture?

    You should really ask a believer, since they’re the ones with the goofy afterlife beliefs, not me. I’m just adopting their position for the sake of argument. As we’ve discussed, that’s something you struggle with.

    Opinions differ among believers on whether we’ll have bodies in the afterlife. If we do, then of course the potential for physical torment is there. If we don’t, then if the immaterial soul is capable of emotions, as most believers hold, the potential for emotional torment is there. And from a believer’s perspective, even physical pain might be possible absent a body. Think phantom limb pain.

  2. keiths:
    Alan,

    You should really ask a believer, since they’re the ones with the goofy afterlife beliefs, not me.

    Well, they’re welcome to chip in.

    I’m just adopting their position for the sake of argument. As we’ve discussed, that’s something you struggle with.

    Oh absolutely!

    Opinions differ among believers on whether we’ll have bodies in the afterlife.

    You’re kidding, right. Physical bodies? Sounds like the army of the dead on GOT.

    If we do, then of course the potential for physical torment is there.

    But if it’s a physical body it has limits and can’t be harmed for an infinite period.

    If we don’t, then if the immaterial soul is capable of emotions, as most believers hold, the potential for emotional torment is there.

    And from a believer’s perspective, even physical pain might be possible absent a body. Think phantom limb pain.

    Logic fail. Phantom limb pain requires a brain to experience it. Try losing a head. Do you experience phantom head pain? Or would it be phantom body pain?

  3. keiths:

    Opinions differ among believers on whether we’ll have bodies in the afterlife.

    Alan:

    You’re kidding, right. Physical bodies?

    No, I’m not kidding. I know you’re not a curious guy, Alan, but this is not exactly a secret. It’s right there in the Apostles’ Creed:

    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy Christian Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting.

    [emphasis added]

  4. keiths:
    keiths:

    Alan:

    No, I’m not kidding..I know you’re not a curious guy, Alan, but this is not exactly a secret. It’s right there in the Apostle’s Creed:

    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy Christian Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting.

    [emphasis added]

    Hmmm? So are there Christians out there that think somewhere there is another physical environment with everlasting physical bodies. Is there a continuous process where people who die pop up again in this new environment in new everlasting bodies? Or is there going to be some future event when this happens? The writer of the creed doesn’t make that clear.

  5. Alan,

    If you’re (finally) developed some curiosity about this stuff, then learn. The information is out there.

    Don’t ask to be spoon fed.

  6. Mung,

    So no convergence in proteins. Like for anti-freeze proteins? no convergence at all in RNA sequences, or DNA sequences, or amino acid sequences, it’s strictly a morphological phenomenon, which morphology is made up of … molecules?

    Are you serious?

    Yes I’m serious. I didn’t say ‘no convergence in proteins’. I said ‘virtually no’. Also known as ‘very little’. By far the most significant cause of homoplasy in sequence comparisons (DNA, rather than protein, typically) is stochastic, not due to phenotypic selection. Perhaps I chose the wrong vague wording, and should have picked some other vague wording instead. Ho hum. An entire line of attack based upon vague words of quantity, won’t that be fun? It’s funny that you choose something specific – antifreeze proteins – and then just mention a few molecules in a vaguely hand-wavy manner.

    Anyway, it would be interesting to see how much this convergence is carried through to the introns or the codons used for the acids involved. Little if any, I’d expect. In which case, what can we infer about the impact of convergence on common descent?

    I’d like to see colewd’s case supported on this specific example – can convergence of antifreeze proteins be seriously viewed as undermining the entire nested hierarchy? (Are you going to say ‘which nested hierarchy?’ again?).

  7. GlenDavidson,

    (to colewd) OMG, do you have any clue of what evolution is about?

    You’re not exactly getting more knowledgeable, possibly even less.

    The pretence of being an interested student was too much to sustain.

  8. Allan, describing colewd:

    The pretence of being an interested student was too much to sustain.

    Mung at least goes to the trouble of buying books, propping them up on his shelves, and taking photos of them. And sometimes quote mining them.

  9. Allan,

    Sorry for the derail – almost unheard of in these parts! 😉

    No problem. I’d be a bit disappointed if my thread remained strictly on topic. 🙂

  10. Woodbine,

    You are the reason scumbags like Benny Hinn thrive.

    I read that as Benny Hill at first … scuttling around laying on hands to the tune of ‘Yakkety Sax’.

  11. Alan Fox: So are there Christians out there that think somewhere there is another physical environment with everlasting physical bodies.

    Actually yes. Some Christians believe that Jesus is, right now, in a physical human body, in heaven. I’m not one of them. 🙂

  12. Mung: Actually yes. Some Christians believe that Jesus is, right now, in a physical human body, in heaven.

    Takes suspension of disbelief to a new level!

    I’m not one of them. 🙂

    Never crossed my mind. My Quaker friends tell me their numbers are on the decline* as (this is the reason they gave) Quakers don’t proselytize. Looking at this, it seems a shame as it seems a much better creed than YEC.
    *Must be true if they can’t be bothered to update the website.

  13. newton: A sinner sounds like a person who rebels against God’s Will. What would you call it?

    we are all sinners,

    we are not all his sheep many of us are goats.

    A sheep is a sinner who even though he might rebel for a time is not destined to remain a rebel forever.

    We can’t see each others hearts so it’s impossible to know for certain what “species” any person we are talking to is this side of the final judgment.

    However we are given some clue when it comes to apostates. (Heb 6:4-8)

    newton: Seems to me you are making the point that there are contradictory bible verses

    Nope just pointing out that when interpreting a passage of text context matters

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: Nope just pointing out that when interpreting a passage of text context matters

    Another thing missing from the sunday school for adolescents attended by keiths before he got the bright idea to become a rebellious teen.

  15. Alan Fox: Quakers don’t proselytize.

    Some of my best childhood friends are Quakers and they proselytize with the best of them. The friends meetings I have attended in my neck of the woods would be hard to distinguish from any other evangelical gathering.

    I guess that is another reason why it’s not a good idea to stereotypically pigeon hole other folks based on color or creed.

    peace

  16. fifthmonarchyman: Some of my best childhood friends are Quakers and they proselytize with the best of them. The friends meetings I have attended in my neck of the woods would be hard to distinguish from any other evangelical gathering.

    I guess that is another reason why it’s not a good idea to stereotypically pigeon hole other folks based on color or creed.

    peace

    Or non creed

  17. newton: Or non creed

    exactly right,

    That is why I try to follow the command of Jesus

    quote:
    Ye shall know them by their fruits. Matt 7:16a
    end quote:

    peace

  18. GlenDavidson: You mean those Jesus-hating, design-denying, Darwinists?

    Some of my best friends now are Darwinists.
    They are nice folks but just have a jacked up understanding of nature In my opinion. 😉
    As for those folks who hate Jesus I am buddies with one or two of them as well.
    However I don’t expect them to have an accurate understanding of God’s love

    peace

  19. fifthmonarchyman: Some of my best friends now are Darwinists.
    They are nice folks but just have a jacked up understanding of nature In my opinion.

    Your opinion doesn’t count for much.

    But what’s a Darwinist? You just went with the idiotic stereotype, didn’t you? I only brought up that particular stereotype because it’s so much the usual BS in these areas.

    Glen Davidson

  20. GlenDavidson: Your opinion doesn’t count for much.

    It counts to me. 😉

    GlenDavidson: But what’s a Darwinist?

    someone who holds to Darwinism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

    GlenDavidson: You just went with the idiotic stereotype, didn’t you?

    I don’t think so.

    GlenDavidson: I only brought up that particular stereotype because it’s so much the usual BS in these areas.

    Darwinist or Quaker are not stereotypes they are labels corresponding to someone who holds to a particular sets of beliefs.

    “All Darwinists are atheists”
    or
    “Quakers don’t proselytize”

    are stereotypes

    do you see the difference?

  21. Hi keiths,

    Just a quick response to your comments.

    You’re starting with your desired conclusion — that God is loving — and reasoning backward from it to the necessary assumptions.

    No. What you originally asked was: “Why in heaven’s name (so to speak) would God take such an uncompromising, unloving stance?” My intention was to describe how one might reconcile belief in a loving God with belief in an eternal Hell. However, I don’t believe in being too dogmatic about Hell. There are some Church Fathers who upheld the notion of an apokastasis.

    If you’re killed instantly by a bomb explosion or a shotgun blast to the head, you don’t have time to even think about repenting.

    Good point. But it all depends on how you define “death.” A doctor would define it in terms of brain death, but it doesn’t follow that death in the spiritual sense of the word is an instantaneous process.

    Why would a person’s beliefs and attitudes fossilize at the instant of death?

    Bearing in mind what I said above about death not being instantaneous, the key reason is that the deceased person has seen all they need to see and undergone all that they need to undergo, in order to make a decision for or against God.

    You don’t have to choose to go to Hell. Simply die in unbelief, and God will send you there, like it or not.

    Pope Francis wouldn’t agree with that view, and neither would I. Of course, it’s a different matter if you persist in unbelief after having seen the Light.

  22. fifthmonarchyman: It counts to me.

    Too bad.

    someone who holds to Darwinism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

    Didn’t really understand your link, did you?

    From your own link:

    Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[27] In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which promotes intelligent design (ID), American writer and actor Ben Stein refers to scientists as Darwinists. Reviewing the film for Scientific American, John Rennie says “The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin’s original ideas… Yet the choice of terminology isn’t random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin to Marxism.”

    It does go on to discuss neutral uses of “Darwinism,” but hardly notes any really reasonable use of the term “Darwinists” for those who stick with science.

    I don’t think so.

    No, I’m sure you don’t, because you don’t actually get what’s at stake.

    Darwinist or Quaker are not stereotypes they are labels corresponding to someone who holds to a particular sets of beliefs.

    Of course that’s what you think, but to what “particular sets of beliefs” do “Darwinists” adhere? That’s exactly what’s so pernicious about your stereotype, the belief that merely following the evidence means holding to a particular set of beliefs. You rely on that kind of BS to denigrate and disparage what you don’t understand.

    “All Darwinists are atheists”
    or
    “Quakers don’t proselytize”

    are stereotypes

    “Darwinists” is a stereotype for those whose conclusions you dislike for your own dogmatic reasons.

    do you see the difference?

    You used a stereotype in order to make another one. I guess that’s a slight difference.

    Glen Davidson

  23. GlenDavidson: It does go on to discuss neutral uses of “Darwinism,” but hardly notes any really reasonable use of the term “Darwinists” for those who stick with science.

    I would agree that most Darwinists I know aren’t sticking with science. Though they would claim that they are

    GlenDavidson: Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively

    non Friends use the term Quaker often pejoratively. I’m not sure what your point is?

    GlenDavidson: Of course that’s what you think, but to what “particular sets of beliefs” do “Darwinists” adhere?

    the beliefs of Darwinism

    namely that

    quote:

    all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

    end quote:

    GlenDavidson: That’s exactly what’s so pernicious about your stereotype, the belief that merely following the evidence means holding to a particular set of beliefs.

    What is so frustrating with the ideologue is that he thinks that holding his own particular set of beliefs amounts to mealy following the evidence while those who disagree do so for some other reason.

    That is a recipe for prejudice and discrimination.

    In fact everyone thinks he is following the evidence where it leads. Even those who have a jacked up idea of how nature works

    peace

  24. keiths: You really need to work on that ellipsis tic, J-Mac.

    Have you ever said anything positive at TSZ? Maybe you should work on that? It may alleviate some of that unfounded anger of yours toward God you don’t believe exists…

    keiths:Do you actually believe that deadly hurricanes are the result of sin?

    Is my answer going to change your attitude in anyway?I doubt it but I’ll give it another try…

    My answer is a question: After Adam and Eve rebelled and sinned, would it be reasonable on God’s part to spare them from the consequences of their rebellion and sin and keep them in paradise forever?

  25. vjtorley: Pope Francis wouldn’t agree with that view, and neither would I. Of course, it’s a different matter if you persist in unbelief after having seen the Light.

    You make it sound like belief is volitional; it’s not.

    Imagine a life-long believer who dies then encounters the ‘Light’ in all its majesty. What if it isn’t what they expected? What if, after they’ve witnessed the face of God, heard the heavenly host, met with the dearly departed – what if they remain unconvinced what they are experiencing is genuine? While simultaneously dramatic, wondrous and terrifying they find they simply do not believe they are truly in His presence. Perhaps they believe they are being tricked by ‘you know who’.

    Are they to be condemned for this? Thrown into the lake of fire? For something over which they have no control?

    But, you might say, they can make a choice to accept what they’ve seen and trust in it anyway. Fine….but all they are doing is gambling a’ la Pascal. It would demonstrate that God really couldn’t care one way or the other if you actually believe in him – only that you are sufficiently cowed to throw your lot in.

  26. J-Mac: My answer is a question: After Adam and Eve rebelled and sinned, would it be reasonable on God’s part to spare them from the consequences of their rebellion and keep them in paradise?

    Are Adam and Eve currently being battered by hurricanes?

    Is it reasonable for a judge to punish descendants for the crimes of their ancestors?

  27. fifthmonarchyman: I would agree that most Darwinists I know aren’t sticking with science. Though they would claim that they are

    Try following what was written, rather than making it up as you go along.

    non Friends use the term Quaker often pejoratively.

    Since when?

    I’m not sure what your point is?

    That you have an epithet wrapped up in a whole lot of untrue assertions against those who accept what you don’t understand.

    the beliefs of Darwinism

    namely that

    quote:

    all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

    end quote:

    So are you an Einsteinist? See, you really can’t even pretend to consider the issue objectively, rather than according to what you “know” to be a false belief.

    What is so frustrating with the ideologue is that he thinks that holding his own particular set of beliefs amounts to mealy following the evidence while those who disagree do so for some other reason.

    What’s really frustrating is that you have no reason to call people “ideologues” just because they disagree with your dogmas, yet you think you’re righteous in your stereotyping and put-downs.

    That is a recipe for prejudice and discrimination.

    Yes, that’s what’s wrong with your stereotyping and prejudice.

    In fact everyone thinks he is following the evidence where it leads. Even those who have a jacked up idea of how nature works

    Difference is, some of us can actually back up what we say. Not to the satisfaction of ignorant stereotyping dogmatists, but according to well-established (pragmatically successful) epistemology.

    peace

    And the meaningless “peace” after the stereotyping and baseless accusations of the dogmatist.

    Glen Davidson

  28. fifthmonarchyman: )

    fifthmonarchyman: Some of my best childhood friends are Quakers and they proselytize with the best of them. The friends meetings I have attended in my neck of the woods would be hard to distinguish from any other evangelical gathering.

    I wasn’t stereotyping, just passing on what one Quaker said about a reason why she was involved in the disposal of some underused meeting houses on prime sites in London was that Quaker numbers have declined and there is no recruitment program. Notwithstanding, I have an open invitation to a meeting. No pressure, though.

    I guess that is another reason why it’s not a good idea to stereotypically pigeon hole other folks based on color or creed.

    Perhaps I shouldn’t think of TSZ members as white, privileged and male.

  29. vjtorley: Of course, it’s a different matter if you persist in unbelief after having seen the Light.

    Hi Vincent

    I’d imagine that “seeing the Light” would be pretty convincing. And this can happen at the moment of death? Seems I can just hang on leading my reprobate life and wait till I’m dying and the Light arrives.

    Quick question. Apparently some Christians believe that not just immaterial souls but complete physical bodies get resurrected to the infinite after-life. Are you among them? If so, how do you deal with the physics?

  30. GlenDavidson:
    What’s really frustrating is that you have no reason to call people “ideologues” just because they disagree with your dogmas, yet you think you’re righteous in your stereotyping and put-downs.

    Yes. It’s especially irritating when it’s so hard to tell what his dogmas even are. All anyone can tell is that FMM just knows that evolutionary theory must be false, for reasons that are opaque to everyone here.

    Difference is, some of us can actually back up what we say. Not to the satisfaction of ignorant stereotyping dogmatists, but according to well-established (pragmatically successful) epistemology.

    Yes — and while that epistemology may not wholly sufficient for all purposes, it’s perfectly adequate for science.

    And the meaningless “peace” after the stereotyping and baseless accusations of the dogmatist.

    Yes, it’s extraordinarily annoying and comes across as needlessly passive-aggressive.

  31. Woodbine: Are Adam and Eve currently being battered by hurricanes?

    Is it reasonable for a judge to punish descendants for the crimes of their ancestors?

    If your mother drunk alcohol while being pregnant with you and now you developed fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, who’s fault is it?

    God’s who prohibits excessive alcohol drinking?

    If your mother got kicked out of the nice house and neighborhood due to her drunkenness and now you her have to live in the dumpster where it is raining and snowing on your head, who’s fault is it?
    God’s?

  32. J-Mac: If your mother drunk alcohol while being pregnant with you and now you developed fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, who’s fault is it?

    You completely dodged the question.

    Is it reasonable for a judge to punish descendants for the crimes of their ancestors?

  33. Woodbine: You completely dodged the question.

    Is it reasonable for a judge to punish descendants for the crimes of their ancestors?

    I didn’t. I’m trying to lead you to the reasonableness of the consequences the descendants often have to suffer…
    Can you see the difference?

  34. John Harshman: He wasn’t talking about complex adaptations. He was talking about individual sequence differences. Given random mutations and only 4 possibilities for a base at an site, one expects a certain number of what are called “multiple hits”, i.e. that same base at the same site, independently arrived at. Nobody expects identical eyes, much less identical eye-building genes, to arise independently. And in fact we don’t find that happening. Eyes that, according to the tree, arose independently also have fundamental differences of structure and genetics. There are some commonalities: the use of Pax-6 homologs to determine the site of eye placement, for example. But those few commonalities are not convergent; Pax-6 was present in the common ancestor. Other commonalities are related to the limited number of physical solutions to sight and do not share genetic bases. And“trying to find a DNA blueprint for an eye in almost infinite sequential space through random change” is just word salad.

    The eye, like a human eye, is a part of ocular system that consists of the eye and its central visual system… Light images from the outside, pass through the central visual system (cornea, the lens, and fluids) to land upon the retina. The retina then generates the signals passed by the optic nerve to the brain and interpreted as vision..

    This further proves that the eye could not have evolved as a separate organ, as all systems needed to be there at the same time for the integration of all visual system to functio not just the eye on its own…

    Yeah, you can attached light-sensitive cells to the olfactory neurotransmitters and make a blind worm (even if it had the pax-6 gene) respond to light and determine whether the worm liked light or disliked light, but that is not the same thing as signals passing by the optic nerve to the brain and interpreted as vision…

    Evolutionists make it seem so easy for evolution solving problem mechanism…

  35. J-Mac: I didn’t. I’m trying to lead you to the reasonableness of the consequences the descendants often have to suffer…
    Can you see the difference?

    I’m not talking about consequential hardship & suffering (drug addict mothers, deadbeat fathers etc) – I’m talking about actively punishing descendants for the crimes of their ancestors.

    Do you think that is reasonable?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.