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.
CharlieM:
Congratulations! That’s the first time I’ve seen you acknowledge errors on the Dear Leader’s part. My point in quoting him was to see if you’d own up to that.
For the record, do you agree with him that Adam and Eve existed, or do you think he got that wrong?
The issue isn’t my attitude toward the Genesis account — it’s the individual believer’s attitude. Hence this paragraph in the OP:
Charlie,
I should also point out that my question applies even to those who doubt the historicity of the Genesis account:
This applies especially to those who think that the Bible is God’s inspired word, even if it contains myths that are not to be taken literally. For them, the question is: Why would God include this myth, with its particular details, in his Holy Word?
phoodoo, regarding newton’s comment:
You realize that newton’s position is different from yours, right? Unlike you, he isn’t arguing that choice depends on God’s non-intervention. Instead, he’s merely arguing that the choices we make will change if we come to expect God’s intervention.
That’s true, but it isn’t the problem he imagines it to be. More on that later.
keiths,
keiths,
You realize you don’t have a position right?
Well, other than, “Why should bad things happen, I like whip cream…”
And Charlie, note the implications of what you’re saying. If al-Kasasbeh’s horrifying, incendiary death wasn’t for his benefit, then who was it for, and why was it necessary?
You wrote:
So al-Kasasbeh’s agony was for the benefit of his captors? Whom God is trying to educate at al-Kasasbeh’s expense, by showing them that they’ve taken “the wrong path”?
Then you’re confirming that God is a complete asshole. “Sorry about your agonizing death, Muath, but I’m helping your captors learn an important lesson. It’s for their benefit. You understand, right?”
newton,
I’d like to make several points in response, but for tonight I’ll make just one.
You’re taking the current universe, in which people need to learn, for granted. But what prevents God from creating a universe in which the beings already have all the knowledge they need at the moment of their creation? In such a world, learning would be unnecessary. Do you believe God is too weak to create such a world, and if so, on what basis? If not, then why doesn’t he?
And if it is somehow necessary, for some unknown reason, for God to create a universe in which the beings can’t be “pre-loaded” with the requisite knowledge and therefore need to learn, why assume that the lessons can only be imparted through adversity? Again, is that the only option available to an almighty God?
More tomorrow.
We know nothing about the amount of pain suffered by Lieutenant Mouath al-Kasaesbeh. We know nothing about the pain and suffering that may have been caused by the missions flown by Lieutenant Mouath al-Kasaesbeh in his F-16. What makes you think that you are in a position to judge these things?
How do you know that God did not intervene in a way that you were unaware of?
From the Bhagavad Gita
Nobody suffers more physical pain than they can endure. Before they reach that point they will pass out. What is your explanation for the fact that excess pain will cause the sufferer to lose consciousness?
Compare the painful experience of Lieutenant Mouath al-Kasaesbeh with that of Falklands war veteran Simon Weston. These were both military men and both knew that their duties might involve inflicting pain and suffering to others and both experienced suffering at the hands of the enemy.
From a report on a talk given by Simon Weston:
Simon Weston bore years of pain after suffering 46 percent burns. He “spent the best part of five years in hospital”. But quite a bit of good has come from his suffering.
How can we make accurate judgements of people and events if we are in the dark as to the threads that connect them to a vast network of other people and events in the past and in the future?
It was Steiner’s opinion that these ancient names such as “Adam” and “Noah”were used to describe a group of individuals who shared a group memory. Whether there were a pair of individuals called Adam and Eve from which all modern humans descended I do not know.
You are confusing forgiveness with the consequences of actions. To say that your sins are forgiven does not mean that you will not still have to atone for your actions. Criminals are not let out of jail just because they have been forgiven by their victims.
I have an understanding of Christianity which most would consider heretical, and it does not include God as you imagine God to be, but it makes sense to me and I believe it is consistent.
Ha, if only keiths could listen to himself speak…my goodness.
Maybe he already did this keiths…. with frogs.
Sounds like you’re talking about Genesis.
God created Adam and Even and gave them the one piece of knowledge they needed, don’t eat from that one tree over there. They still managed to screw up.
I think the Genesis story is addressed to people like keiths. God could do everything to make it possible for humans to succeed and prosper and be happy and they would still muck it up.
If we are judging God by the nature this universe, it would seem logical step.
Interesting thought. Anything someone didn’t know they knew they didn’t need it because they didn’t know it.
Would a world of single cell organisms suffice? They have all the knowledge they need.
If so do you consider such a world the result of omnibenevolent deity?
I didn’t say that it was the only way, I said eliminating any possible adverse consequences for the exercise of Free Will changes the nature of Free Will. God as the divine helicopter parent.
Mung,
Keiths wants some people born already knowing how to be a mechanical engineer. Others would be born knowing how to be a pastry chef, and others would be born knowing how to be a hair colorer. If you hate being a hair colorer, I am very sorry, that is the knowledge you were born with. But don’t worry, you will also have the knowledge to know how to change the oil in a 1974 Dodge Dart sport, which is useful, because that is the car you will be driving, so its very handy.
Or perhaps keiths wants everyone born with exactly the same knowledge. So even though you are an insurance adjuster in Omaha, actually you know how to do brain surgery.
And when you have a conversation with your wife, it would go something like this: “Honey, did you know…Yes of course I know.” “But I was just reading..” “Yea, I already know that. What are you reading for, you already know everything?” “Well, because…Don’t answer, I already know why. I know everything.”
I think keiths is attempting to discover just how insane his philosophies can get.
So if I know how to repair a septic system would I also know how to repair a brain? Would I also know which profession to choose?
Mung,
If God weren’t such an asshole, there would be no need for this question. There would be no need for any questions. There would be no need for conversation.
“Do you know…”
“Yes!!! Shut up!”
phoodoo,
No, phoodoo, I don’t want that. But I can see why you’re trying to pretend that I do. You’re unable to defend your God, so your only option is to try to blunt the attacks by pretending that they are unreasonable.
It isn’t working.
My point is that newton’s argument fails unless he can show that horrendous suffering, such as the death of the Jordanian pilot, is necessary in order to impart some important lesson to us — a lesson so important that it warrants the pilot’s unspeakable agony.
A powerful God should be able to impart those lessons without the horrendous suffering. If you think he is too weak to do that, then tell us why.
keiths:
newton:
No, it’s actually quite illogical. To judge God, you need to consider the possibilities open to him. For example, if you could show that the current universe, exactly as it is, was the only logical possibility open to God — in other words, if he had to create a universe, and this was the only logically possible one — then you would instantly get him off the hook for everything bad within the universe, because he had no choice in the matter.
On the other hand, if he could have created a universe far better than the one we live in, then he’s back on the hook.
You have to consider the possibilities, not just the actual universe.
keiths:
newton:
That depends on God’s goals in creating the universe. The challenge for you is to come up with a plausible, non-ad-hoc explanation for why a powerful, loving God would create a universe like ours, complete with horrendous suffering. Your “so we can learn” rationale doesn’t cut it unless you can show that the lessons can’t be imparted any other way, including by “pre-loading”.
keiths:
newton:
It wouldn’t change the nature of free will* . The choices would still be free, just different.
*And of course we’ve been assuming for the purposes of this discussion that libertarian free will is a coherent concept. In reality, it isn’t.
keiths,
keiths, keiths, keiths, you don’t know what you want! That’s the point.
You just have some vague, undeveloped, articulated desire to say people should have less struggle, but you are incapable of saying what that means. How much less? You have no idea. A world entirely devoid of mortality and work. Beats you, you prefer not to say. Heaven for everyone? Yea that sounds good. How many is everyone, you haven’t a clue.
Save only humans from suffering? Sounds about right. Dogs too? Yes, Ok, why not. Cat’s? Well, save yellow cats, sure, they are cute. Alligators? Hm, don’t know. Polar bears for sure. Mosquitoes? No, no, who likes mosquitoes, kill them. In fact don’t let them ever exist. Bacteria? Well, some bacteria, the good kind. And not sharks, but goldfish.
Should people have relationships in keiths world. Don’t ask this. Yes, no, sort of, let God work that out, he’s powerful right? Should they make decisions? I don’t know. Should there be consequences? Again, check with God. Should there be both good and bad? Look, stop asking questions, keiths doesn’t answer questions. But your God is an asshole, he should have a solution that suits me, ok?
But pilots shouldn’t suffer, I know that much! Not American pilots!
phoodoo,
Here’s a rhetorical question: Why do you keep trying to make my argument for me, when I’m presenting it in my own words?
Answer: Because you are incompetent, and you’re aware of that. You know that if you engaged my actual words, you would lose the debate. (In fact, you already have.) So you attack the incompetent phoodoo version of my argument instead, and declare victory because it is inane.
Well, duh. You came up with it, so of course it’s inane. You’re simply demonstrating your own incompetence.
Here’s the more interesting (but still rhetorical) question: Can you defend your God against my argument, expressed in my words?
The answer is no. Hence your misrepresentations, as in the immediately preceding comment.
When? Where? Its a mystery.
You argument is, why doesn’t God do it some other way. When you are asked what is that other way, you disappear like a shrunken tulip.
You have no argument keiths. Maybe YOU need to start answering some questions, instead of insisting that is everyone else’s job.
phoodoo,
You keep switching from telling me what my argument is to telling me I don’t have an argument, sometimes within the same comment.
Here’s an idea: Read my words.
CharlieM,
Christ, Charlie. Did you watch the video? What is wrong with you?
keiths:
CharlieM:
I gave you a direct quote from Steiner. Here’s an expanded version with more context:
A pair of humans, not a group, Charlie.
This Steiner horseshit is so amusing that I can’t resist sharing another quote with the readers:
Charlie, do you recognize that as the total BS that it is?
Here’s a better idea, figure out for yourself what your argument is. Once you think you can do that, think about it even longer, because you still probably don’t know what it is.
Let us know.
You don’t have an argument, you have a complaint, that you can’t articulate.
I guess you are familiar with that feeling as that basically described you and your relationship to evolution. All you know it’s it’s wrong. Beyond that you cannot articulate.
The tree is there for the same reason that Darwin placed a tree at the centre of his theory:
The eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge represents the arrival of the self-conscious ego in the evolutionary process. This tree is literally the human central nervous system which takes in through the senses the nourishment required to develop the ego and thus give humans an awareness that was a new feature which had grown out of the earthly evolution. Only after eating the fruit did they notice that they were naked. In other words they became aware of themselves.
Just as in Darwin, the tree is a pictorial representation of real processes.
Why do you think that the experience was not for his benefit?
IMO you are trying to take apart the very complex interweaving of personal paths and destinies which cannot be understood separately and so you simplify it to the extent that it becomes meaningless. Neither you nor I are in a position to trace these events in relation to the whole existence of those involved and so we cannot see them from an objective perspective. Life is often unfair and people do have to experience suffering through the actions of others but if it is realised that this one earthly life is but a small part of what we are in reality then we may also realise that we do not see the bigger picture.
Simon Weston received benefits from his suffering within his present lifetime, al-Kasasbeh will receive benefits from his suffering within a higher reality.
Obviously if you deny this higher reality you will see everything as pointless.
Unless you were there suffering with him how could you know? I believe that God was there suffering with him and thus did know and experience his suffering.
One thing we do know is that his suffering was short lived.
CharlieM:
keiths:
CharlieM:
Yeah, how could we possibly know that a man engulfed in flames, writhing and screaming, is experiencing extreme pain?
You are in your own personal bubble, Charlie, tightly sealed against any evidence that challenges your pre-assumed conclusions. It’s pitiful.
keiths,
When you convince me that you have a reasonable understanding, not agreement, just understanding of Steiner’s communications about human evolution, planetary evolution and the relationship between body, soul and spirit, then I will take more heed of what you have to say on the subject.
Charlie,
Are you telling us you actually buy that horseshit?
There is no doubt that he did experience extreme pain. But there is a great deal of difference in the pain threshold of individuals.
Tell me this, do you know which part of that horrific experience Mouath al-Kasaesbeh found to be most agonising, the fear of what was about to happen or the physical pain?
You are criticising his words by comparing them with something that promotes new growth. So I would say that the metaphor holds in that Steiner’s words encourage us to develop a new way of thinking in order to understand reality.
keiths,
keiths,
When are you going to tell us all who has consequences in your God 2.0 world?
Are cats made of foam? Do grasshoppers get a free pass? Do people have to go to work? Is your heart allowed to be broken? Do you have to love your kids?
We keep getting hints from you that there is a better way, when can you reveal the details?
https://moonpie.com/
phoodoo,
I’m not proposing a World 2.0. I’m just pointing out that your God, if he exists, isn’t loving.
You’re unable to defend him, as is known by everyone who has been following this thread.
Charlie,
You’re understandably reluctant to say, but my question still stands: Do you actually believe that horseshit?
Let’s make it easier for you by looking at some individual “verses”. Do you believe the following?
Do you think Steiner got that right?
CharlieM:
Therefore God is clearly loving despite letting al-Kasasbeh burn to death in extreme pain? That doesn’t make sense, Charlie. (To put it mildly.)
Notice what you’re doing. Any evidence in favor of a loving God, you accept. Any evidence against it, and you’re suddenly searching for reasons to reject it or minimize it.
It’s the perfect strategy for a truth evader. Face it, Charlie. You want to believe that God is loving, whether he really is or not (and whether he even exists or not). You’re stacking the deck in favor of your desired conclusion instead of seeking the truth with an open mind.
That’s also how you are able to believe this Steiner horseshit, when anyone with a single skeptical bone in their body can see that it’s bunk.
Do you still insist that your argument is an evidential argument and not a logical argument?
Of course. Pay attention, Mung.
Yes, I believe so.
Wow.
Well it wouldn’t make sense to you as you do not believe in any higher reality.
CharlieM:
You could just as easily believe in a higher reality without thinking that God is loving.
You believe that God is loving because you want to believe that God is loving.
Earlier in the thread, I asked:
I wanted to mention one of the explanations I have seen for this. It was in a book by Robert Price that I read some time ago, and it makes a lot of sense.
The idea is that part of Genesis is a remnant from a polytheistic precursor (I think it was the ‘E’ part, if you know the documentary hypothesis.) In that polytheistic belief system, the gods had bodies. The gods also ate, just like humans do. And here’s the important part: The Garden was for benefit of the gods as well as for humans. The gods ate from the trees contained within it.
By eating from the Tree of Life, the gods maintained their immortality. By eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they maintained their superior wisdom. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were also allowed to eat from the Tree of Life; thus they remained immortal. The only tree that was forbidden to them was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That was strictly for the gods’ use.
So the answer to my question is that the Tree of Knowledge was there because the gods needed to eat from it, and the Tree of Life was there because both the gods and the humans needed to eat from it.
Christians, naturally, won’t be big fans of this hypothesis. But it makes sense of a lot of things about Genesis.
1. The fact that the gods had bodies explains passages like this one:
2. The fact that God initially forbids Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but not from the Tree of Life, is because he wanted them to be immortal, but he didn’t want them to be wise.
3. Adam and Eve’s demotion from immortality to mortality is explained by the fact that they no longer had access to the Tree of Life after being banished from the Garden for their rebellion.
4. The fact that there were multiple gods explains the use of the word ‘Elohim’ for ‘God’ in this part of Genesis. ‘Elohim’ is grammatically plural in Hebrew, just like ‘seraphim’ and ‘cherubim’. The fact of multiple gods also explains oddities like the phrase ‘one of us’ in the following verse:
It all makes good sense, though it doesn’t fit well with orthodox Christian belief.
I don’t think it quite fits the story. The clear implication of YHWH’s words upon the exile is that you only have to eat from the Tree of Life once in order to become immortal permanently. “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Why the pair didn’t think to eat from the Tree of Life before that is a puzzlement. Perhaps they weren’t wise enough.
I’ve been paying attention, have you?
John,
That’s a good point. But if the gods were already wise and immortal, and if humans weren’t intended to eat from the two trees, then the question once again arises: Why were the trees there in the first place?
LoL.
You believe that God is not loving because you want to believe that God is not loving.
Mung,
Why are you quoting KN? My argument is my argument.