In a recent thread, I challenged Christians and other believers to explain why their supposedly loving God treats people so poorly. Toward the end of the thread, I commented:
We’re more than 1200 comments into this thread, and still none of the believers can explain why their “loving” God shits all over people, day after day.
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? [Or stand by, doing nothing, while a maniac mowed them down using automatic weapons?]
Your supposedly loving God does that. Why?
As you’d expect, the Christians struggled to find a good answer. One of their failed attempts was to appeal to the Cross. Fifthmonarchyman, for instance, wrote this:
I just think that the way to understand God’s love is to look at the Cross and not at the latest natural disaster.
That’s fairly typical. Christians do see the Cross as a great symbol of love. Jesus was willing to lay down his life for us, after all. What could be more loving than that?
The problem is that they haven’t thought things through. When you do, the Cross becomes rather appalling. Here’s how I put it in response to FMM:
That’s right. God had the power to forgive Adam and Eve. A loving God would have forgiven them. The Christian God refused to forgive them, banished them from the Garden, made their lives miserable, and then blamed their descendants as if they had anything to do with it.
The Christian God is an unloving asshole. Thank God (so to speak) that he doesn’t exist.
And just to complete the picture, he decides that since Adam and Eve ate a particular fruit — something he knew would happen before he even created them — everyone must be tortured for eternity after they die. (Can’t you feel the love?)
But wait — there’s a way out! This psychotic God is willing to forgive us after all, because he tortured himself to death! He just needed a little more blood and gore in order to forgive us, that’s all. (Can’t you feel the love?)
So FMM comes along and says “ignore the natural disasters, ignore all the ways God torments people, and look to the Cross,” as if the cross were some great symbol of love. It isn’t. It’s the symbol of a creepy God who
a) creates people and sticks them in a Garden;
b) gets the bright idea of putting a tree in the Garden that he doesn’t want them to eat from;
c) blames them for eating from it, even though he knew that would happen before he even created them;
d) blames their descendants, as if they had anything to do with it;
e) decides that everyone must be tortured for eternity, because Adam and Eve ate from a tree that he was stupid enough to put in the Garden;
f) decides that he might be willing to forgive everyone in exchange for more blood and gore;
g) in the ultimate act of self-loathing, tortures himself to death; and
h) with his blood lust satisfied, finally agrees to forgive people;
i) except that even with his bloodlust temporarily satisfied, he’s still an asshole; so
j) he decides that he’s still going to torture for eternity the folks who don’t believe in him at the moment of death, and only forgive the ones who suck up to him.
Can’t you feel the love?
Christians, pause and ask yourselves: What happened to me? How did I end up believing something as stupid and ridiculous as Christianity? Why am I labeling this monstrous God as ‘loving’?
The Holy Spirit is a wondrous thing. It descends on people, making them incredibly stupid. It even makes them forget what love is.
Now, I’m fully aware that Christians don’t all agree on the historicity of the Adam and Eve story or on how atonement works. We can discuss some of those differences in the comments below. But I do think it’s striking that Christians have not come up with a story that makes sense, and that a large number of them unwittingly hold beliefs that paint God as monstrous, not loving, and the Cross as the symbol not of love, but of a petty and ungenerous refusal to forgive until blood is spilled.
The Cross truly is an embarrassment, right at the heart of Christianity.
Christians, here’s my latest question again:
Why should Christians spend time correcting your misunderstandings given that you don’t admit when you’re wrong and you don’t change your ways?
For example, aren’t there numerous passages in the bible that specifically address people who “suck up” to God? What do they say? In my recollection, they don’t paint a pretty picture.
The same can be said with regard to salvation. Apparently you believe what you want to believe.
So I reject your premise. As usual.
keiths, an embarrassment at the heart of atheism.
🙂
Your position is that God does not exist. You don’t seem convinced though.
Endless questions. And from the lack of response you can conclude what, exactly?
The Grand Inquisitor
While the first of these comments is from an earlier post on this thread, the second is from a different OP that I came across while I was browsing. It is actually somewhat relevant to the discussion of Heaven we are currently having and I would be curious if vjtorley has any thoughts on it.
From the current OP:
From the “God loves you, enjoy your eternity in Hell” OP in May of this year:
To an unbiased observer it might appear somewhat incongruous that Augustine could have ‘famously declared’ while having (thankfully) ‘little influence of Eastern Christianity’.
Yes, you have repeated that bald and unsupported assertion several times. But you have not shown why it should be so.
The key question is: Do you think that those things exist in Heaven?
If so, then what good is Earth? And if not, why are those things so important for 70 or so years (or far less in the case of infant fatalities) on Earth if they are not needed in the paradise of eternity?
In your ‘Loving God’ model, we toil and suffer through 70 years if we are lucky and then some subset of us go onto 24-hour whipped-cream orgasms for eternity while the other non-elect either go for eternal torment (or the much milder sentence of nothingness). In my ‘Loving God’ model we have the benefit of the whipped-cream orgasms for eternity without the toil and no one gets sent to Hell or Hell-Light. How is the God of your model more loving than the one in my model?
Mung is avoiding the question in typical Mung fashion, but can any of you other Christians tell us why your supposedly loving God limits salvation to those who suck up to him? Why not do the loving thing and grant salvation to everyone, regardless of belief?
You seem to be obsessed with getting me to talk about Steiner and tomatoes although I already said that I thought it was off topic, and it’s true that I am no expert on them but I do like to eat them.
You took the Steiner quote from his Agriculture Course given to farmers and interested parties at their request in 1924.
Towards the end of the lecture he said:
What he wanted to achieve with this course is that the farmers that attended should first experiment with his recommendations, satisfy themselves that the methods brought beneficial results and only then openly talk about them from out of their own experiences.
So, contrary to what you say, I am not a very loyal disciple of Steiner. Otherwise I would not be talking about things which I am relatively ignorant. As you seem to be happy for me to do so I am willing to speak about topics relating to this subject here. It shouldn’t have to be said that what I write are my beliefs and I don’t claim them as facts.
If you want to know my thoughts about what Steiner said regarding tomatoes I will first have to explain things as I see them in general. I believe that this physical reality extends into a higher spiritual reality and whether or not we are aware of it we are part of that higher reality. I look around this physical world and I can differentiate between lifeless minerals, plants, animals, and humans. Plants have the quality of living growth over and above minerals. And we observe that animals possess the extra quality of sentience. Humans have these qualities and also rational self consciousness. The terms Steiner uses here are physical body, etheric or life body, astral body and ego.
Now in reality everything has these attributes, but only in the human is it condensed into individual physical organisms. Plant egos remain as spiritual entities and the physical bodies which belong to those egos are made up of groups of plants such as complete species. When Steiner was talking about the qualities of tomatoes in the quote you posted, he was talking about the being of the tomato plant in its entirety, ego, astral, life and physical aspects, and not just the physical plant that we see before us. That is as much as I want to say at the moment.
It is not hard to understand why someone with your world outlook would consider it horseshit. These thoughts are totally foreign to your way of thinking.
So in your model, where is choice and consequences?
phoodoo,
Speaking of “choice and consequences”, here is one of the many questions you’ve been avoiding:
If earthly life, with its choices and consequences, is so important, why does God steal it from infants and children who die young?
Guess it’s not so important after all.
CharlieM,
It isn’t just the tomatoes, Charlie. Every Steiner quote we’ve discussed has been evidence-free horseshit, whether he was talking about tomatoes, black people, or this:
CharlieM:
My “world outlook” is not the issue. I’ve come to accept things, like quantum mechanics and relativity theory, that were completely “foreign to my (earlier) way of thinking.”
I accepted them because they made sense and the evidence supports them. The deliverances of Steiner’s sphincter do not qualify by that standard.
keiths,
keiths quote:
keiths,
Just to be sure you understand what you are quoting can you tell me what Steiner means by “Saturn” here and how it compares with the present planet that we observe in the night sky?
phoodoo,
The answer to my question does matter to your argument.
You and I know that, and the readers know it.
Here it is again:
It’s OK to admit that you have no idea. If you could answer my questions, you would have done so by now.
CharlieM:
The quote is Steineresque, evidence-free horseshit about the “spiritual aspects” of the heavenly bodies.
It may very well be Steineresque, evidence-free horseshit but in order for your claim to be taken seriously you really need to demonstrate that you understand what he meant by the term.
Charlie,
Here’s another sample:
This is typical of Steiner’s output. Page after page of horseshit produced by “clairvoyant investigation” and supported by no evidence whatsoever.
Tell us, Charlie — can you confirm that “whereas we must win the confidence of the Moon Beings if we are to learn anything from them about cosmic mysteries, this is not necessary with Saturn”? If so, how did you ascertain that? If not, why should we take Steiner’s word for it?
And do you honestly fail to see how convenient it is for Steiner to say:
Don’t admit, even in “the innermost sanctuary of the heart”, any thought of criticism or opposition. Just blindly believe, says Steiner.
Unfortunately, you seem to have taken Steiner’s advice.
Fortunately Steiner updated the book after the copy you have taken the quote from. He did this in order to avoid the misunderstandings such as those you demonstrate. As he said in a later edition:
The updated version of the passage you quoted reads:
He does not advise devotion to any person, he advises “devotion to truth and knowledge”.
I said that you were clearly wrong on both counts. If that’s what you want to call “avoiding the question” then so be it. You appear to lack the requisite familiarity with the relevant texts. You can’t blame me for that. [Well, you can, lol. But who will believe you?]
keiths: Sucking up to God gets’ you in!
Malachi:
It is you priests who show contempt for my name.
But you ask, How have we shown contempt for your name?
By offering defiled food on my altar.
God seems to be not at all pleased with these people trying to “suck up” to Him. So keiths premise 1 is false. Sucking up to God doesn’t guarantee you anything.
keiths, do you want more examples of attempts to suck up to God which are rejected by God? Will you admit that your premise is false?
God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding. He says to the snow, ‘Fall on the earth,’ and to the rain shower, ‘Be a mighty downpour.’
Job 37:5-6 NIV
According to Job, God is responsible for the intensity of the rain. keiths chooses to ignore this evidence.
Those who sacrifice thank offerings honor me, and to the blameless I will show my salvation.
– Psalm 50:23
So keiths premise 2 is false.
Poor Mung is afraid to quote my actual question, because it spoils his attempts at equivocation:
[emphasis added]
Well, Mung? Why doesn’t he?
CharlieM,
Steiner’s revised version of that paragraph is hardly any better. After all, he’s the one claiming to impart “truth and knowledge” to his followers through those lectures, and so the “truth and knowledge” he’s asking his followers to “venerate” is still coming from him.
And by “veneration”, he still means the same sheeplike, unquestioning acceptance he was urging before:
He’s telling you to withhold judgment and blindly believe. You’ve taken his advice, with disastrous results.
I also notice that you passed over these questions:
Is this a “truth” we must “venerate”, as Steiner urges, by withholding our questions and criticisms?
Do you see how much horseshit you’ve swallowed as a result of following Steiner’s goofy advice?
No he isn’t. You cannot do both of these things simultaneously. How can you withhold judgement and blindly believe when to blindly believe is to judge something to be true without good reason? Think about it. You seem to have a one-sided view of what it means to judge.
We should never withhold questions.
I passed over these questions because I reserve the right to withhold judgement on these matters and so I have nothing to add. You have still not come close to answering my earlier question:
Just to be sure you understand what you are quoting can you tell me what Steiner means by “Saturn” here and how it compares with the present planet that we observe in the night sky?
And lack of intensity of rain as well?
CharlieM:
I told you already. Steiner is talking about the “spiritual aspects” of the planets, not their physical nature. When he says crap like this…
…he is not saying that Saturn flaps his rings and thereby tells us these things. Even Steiner is not that loony, though he comes close. He is talking about a kind of planet-soul communicating through non-physical means.
keiths:
CharlieM:
Ha ha. Interesting how reticent you become whenever I ask about specifics.
Perhaps you could weigh in on the following statements, or do you “reserve the right to withhold judgment” on them, also?
And:
And:
And if you happen to “withhold judgment” on all of those, then let’s talk about something you weren’t so reticent about. These are your own words:
Care to tell us how you ascertained all that?
keiths:
CharlieM:
Sure you can.
You can blindly believe something without applying any judgment. You just accept it without judging it. This appears to be a process you have some personal acquaintance with.
Charlie,
It’s no mystery why Steiner discourages the very things that would enable people to see through his horseshit.
No judge. No criticize. No want truth. Me like Steiner! Me believe Steiner!
keiths, do you know yet why you are wrong?
Another keiths attempt to rewrite history. He actually had two questions and I answered both. His premise is false.
Sucking up to God doesn’t ensure acceptance by God. The bible is quite clear on this point. So keiths has relied on a false premise. No doubt he’ll take that as yet more evidence that God does not exist.
Mung,
How convenient that you dropped my last sentence (in bold below):
You’re ashamed that you can’t give a good answer. It’s obvious and completely unsurprising. People already know that you can’t defend your faith.
You’re not a thinker, and so when people who do think about such things pose these sorts of questions to you, you’re caught flat-footed.
Christians,
Hours from now, many of you will be in church, worshiping your supposedly loving God. How would you answer my question? Why doesn’t God do the loving thing and grant salvation to everyone, regardless of belief?
And if any of you happen to be universalists (who think that God grants salvation to everyone), then congratulations — the God you believe in is more loving than the one many of your fellow Christians believe in. But then, how do you reconcile your belief with conflicting passages from the Bible (assuming you even bother to try)?
Yet another pathetic attempt at revisionist history. I answered both your questions.
So you knew that your premise was false.
keiths, you know why you are wrong. Time to admit it.
What happened to your other question, the one about sucking up to God? Are you ashamed that you could be so ignorant about what the bible says so you want everyone to just forget that you asked such an ignorant question?
You were wrong. Admit it.
Mung,
From the OP:
You’ve been equivocating on the meaning of “sucking up”, but the OP makes it obvious that I am talking about belief.
Your desperation is palpable. You’ll do anything to avoid addressing the question, which is
Thinking folks can see the problem. You are afraid to confront it.
You were told what to believe, and so you believed it. You’re not the kind of person who thinks for himself.
Steiner informs us that the heart is not a pump. Thanks, Rudolf!
What about the people that get shot in the head and don’t get a chance to squeeze in their final plea? Even though had they the chance they would have?
And presumably Mung’s god knows they would have done that, given the chance.
It’s a bit like why god hates amputees. The difference between a life of eternal suffering or eternal bliss is simply what way you happened to be facing when the shooter pulled the trigger. Seems a bit arbitrary. Likewise limb regrowth. god’ll cure cancer, blindness and even fly you around the village for a day like a bird but he’ll be fucked if he’ll regrow a missing limb.
Only in America, I guess.
OMagain:
I raised that issue with Vincent Torley:
keiths:
vjtorley:
keiths:
vjtorley:
And:
keiths:
keiths,
Hey Keiths, where is the choice, for a brain in a vat having 24 hour orgasms?
More questions you are dodging.
phoodoo,
Why are you asking, when that has nothing to do with the argument I am making?
Now back to my question, which has everything to do with your “choice” argument:
It’s obvious that your answer is “I don’t know; I hadn’t thought of that.” Why not just admit it?
keiths,
Its obvious its very important to your argument. Saying “Its not important to my argument” is just you being afraid to answer, right?
Be brave. Where’s the choice? Enough dodging keiths. That didn’t work out so good for you last time, did it?
phoodoo,
Then you’ll be able to explain why. Quote me and tell us how what you’ve quoted depends on whether perpetually orgasming brains-in-vats are exercising choice.
Or fail again, as usual. It’s up to you.
Meanwhile, if choice is so important to your God, why does he steal it from infants and children who die young? And what about all those fetuses he aborts?
Choice doesn’t seem so important after all, does it?
It seemed quite clear to you 2 comments ago. No choice, no consequences. My model is Heaven for all, whether it’s one brain in a vat or an infinite number of brains. Just whipped-cream 24 hours a day.
So, once again I ask you: