Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 22 Nov 2017, 09:38 PM   #680886 / #1176
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,258
Default

LOL, reminds me of the alien wearing the "edgar suit" in Men In Black: https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/17191cc...0-903330d297d1

Yep, meat sacks, that's us.
__________________
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Nov 2017, 09:34 AM   #680930 / #1177
1ICrying
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 62
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
1I, are you still about?

I've been reading through that Bad News about Christianity site I've quoted from a couple of times before. That link goes to the page 'Jehovah as a Sky God', and talks specifically about the Biblical actions of the God you worship, if you claim that the Bible is authoritative.

Quote:
In summary, the God of the Old Testament behaves much like a human being. He has a human form, suffers human weaknesses and displays human failings. He lives in remote high places and controls the elements. He is astonishingly partisan and brutal by modern standards, with a taste for blood sacrifice. He is capricious, spiteful, bloodthirsty, and he had the same outlook and prejudices as Jews who lived 3,000 to 2,500 years ago. We might also note that he has no objection to capital or corporal punishment, genocide, mutilation, polygamy, concubinage, slavery or racism. Indeed he encourages all of them. By modern standards he veers between the immoral and amoral, and bears no resemblance at all to the merciful, omniscient and omnipotent God favoured by modern theologians. All in all, the God of the Old Testament is a perfect example of an ancient tribal sky god.

How do Christians reconcile their merciful, omniscient and omnipotent God with this monster depicted in the Old Testament? One solution is simply to ditch the Old Testament, as many early Christians did, and more recent deists have done. Another solution is to claim that the God of the Old Testament who created the world is not a supreme god, but a flawed subsidiary god — this was the solution adopted by Gnostics, Manichæans, Cathars and Jehovah's Witnesses. A third is to claim that God showed to humankind a face that matched their stage of human development, but this is not a satisfactory solution when the pagan Greeks were far in advance of God's chosen people in their understanding of ethics, morality, philosophy and so on. Another problem for this last explanation is that human mental abilities have changed little in the last 5,000 years, so ancient peoples were as capable as modern Christians in appreciating the God of the modern theologians.

The remaining option is to ignore the facts. The offending passages are not read in church, God's many failings are not taught to children, and awkward questions are dismissed with the answer that it is a divine mystery. The same carefully selected passages are cited over and over again to portray an acceptable picture of God. So it is that most Christians have not the slightest inkling that their God was ever anything like the one depicted in the Old Testament.
Any comment on that? Or do you prefer that last option, and just ignore what the OT has to say about God?
Hi Jobar - It would take me a long time to answer all that well, especially since its 1am and I would like to clean up the kitchen, but let me give you a short version.

In summary, the God of the Old Testament behaves much like a human being.
He has a human form, suffers human weaknesses and displays human failings. He lives in remote high places and controls the elements.


I didn't get that = I think in the Old Testament God is still up in heaven, not on a mountain, but yes, he would have ultimate control of the elements. He did get angry yes. Apparently disappointed at human kinds hedonisom, or so the story goes. - so, yes God does have emotions, to a super Godlike degree. Is it possible for him to get angry - yes. He can experience all of the emotions that we have - only more so. Why didn't he control his anger = well, I don't know. But the thing is, if he was, he was. You could debate about how or why forever.


He is astonishingly partisan and brutal by modern standards, with a taste for blood sacrifice. He is capricious, spiteful, bloodthirsty, and he had the same outlook and prejudices as Jews who lived 3,000 to 2,500 years ago. We might also note that he has no objection to capital or corporal punishment, genocide, mutilation, polygamy, concubinage, slavery or racism. Indeed he encourages all of them.

I would say that he is perfectly aware of all these things, and if they happen, he's able to rise above it all (though he did display a bit of anger) but the thing is, God doesn't encourage that stuff - it's the stuff that we do because we are lacking in love, and God is love. He is love, but don't take him for a fool or a pushover, if you push God, he's going to have the last laugh. It's his way or the highway - and the highway goes out into the dark. But don't blame God for the darkness or your choice to turn away into it.

All in all, the God of the Old Testament is a perfect example of an ancient tribal sky god.

Except, there can only be one God of Gods, and in this one case, God is God and not an ancient tribal sky god. He might have some characterisitics of, but is far apart from that as true is from false.

How do Christians reconcile their merciful, omniscient and omnipotent God with this monster depicted in the Old Testament?

I reconcile it a bit like this. He is not depicted as a monster in the old testament, but only as God being God. He, and only he, has the right to do whatever the hell He/She likes. So, questioning God, is a folly from the start. You can of course ask questions, but don't stand around and think you know more than God, and that you can put God on trial in your infantile court.

God may have punished and smote and rebuked and all sorts of good stuff, but it would have been out of righteousness everytime. Right overcoming wrong. He's in control dudes, and he works in mysterious ways (didn't you hear?).

So, no dichotomy for me between the two. He may have been a bit more of a bitch in scene one, and mellowed out in the second (or remained more quiet) but that's God doing it God's way.

No smoking gun here Jobar. Time to do the dishes.
1ICrying is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Nov 2017, 11:50 AM   #680932 / #1178
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
.... but the thing is, God doesn't encourage that stuff -
But it is actively encouraged by him, according to the bible.

How about:

"They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

or

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
- it's the stuff that we do because we are lacking in love, and God is love.
The supposedly loving god of the bible is arguably a lot less loving than many human parents. Personally, I wouldn't let him babysit my kids, even if I believed he existed. If they did something he thought was wrong, I reckon he'd smite them, at the very least. Hopefully not kill them. Depends what he thought they they did wrong, I suppose. Hopefully not eternal punishment either, at that stage. That's all for later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
He is not depicted as a monster in the old testament, but only as God being God. He, and only he, has the right to do whatever the hell He/She likes. So, questioning God, is a folly from the start.
I think you may have Stockholm Syndrome.

Good choice of word though. Hell. Very apt. I wonder who created that? Eternal torment for getting something wrong during a comparatively very short window of opportunity, with no possibility of forgiveness afterwards. Cool concept. Sort of at odds with asking us to be forgiving, especially to those who do us wrong, but there you go.

No thanks. I'd rather worship my wife, or my mum. They may be flawed, but at least they have (had, in the case of my mum) a better idea of what love is.

Last edited by ruby sparks; 23 Nov 2017 at 01:25 PM.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Nov 2017, 01:29 PM   #680934 / #1179
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
The idea of eternal suffering (either in physical form as depicted in the Bible in spite of desperate apologetics trying to patch that fatal flaw) is one of the main reasons why I deprogrammed. No one could ever explain to me why meat matters. If there is an eternal “soul” that is just piloting a meat sack for what would comparatively be not even a blink in such an eternal existence, then why in the world would it only matter what that soul “thought” while encased in meat?

And of course the whole fact that such a god would know already—before any of us were even born—exactly what each of us would think/believe at every stage of our meat-encased existence, so it serves no purpose on any level for us to suffer eternally (again, including the popular apologetic that to “suffer eternally” means to remove yourself from God’s presence, or grace or whatever the hell its current variation is). Do we only have free will in meat? Does “belief” solidify only upon the last belief before our terminal breath and why would that be?
I think the flaw is even more fundamental. Ever hear of a deal too good to be true?

-"Just dedicate your life to the church and give us all your free time and afterwards we'll give you the best thing in the world you could possibly imagine"

-"Is it a really fast car?"

-"Sure"

-"Can I see the car first?"

-"No"

I don't want to say that Abrahamics are dumb. But falling for this, obvious bullshit sell, is not being smart.
__________________
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Nov 2017, 01:40 PM   #680936 / #1180
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
No smoking gun here Jobar.
Actually, you simply ignore the smoking gun. For the same reason Republicans ignore the bizarre/psychopathic behavior of Orangeface. Despite his awful personality, you think he will do something that furthers your personal goals.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Nov 2017, 01:50 PM   #680937 / #1181
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
-"Just dedicate your life to the church and give us all your free time and afterwards we'll give you the best thing in the world you could possibly imagine"

-"Is it a really fast car?"

-"Sure"

-"Can I see the car first?"

-"No"
- "Can I at least just see you first then?"

-"No"

- "what's the alternative to this dedication deal?"

- "Trust me, you won't like the answer to that. But to give you an idea, it might involve it being time to burn rubber, but not in the way you might think".

Last edited by ruby sparks; 23 Nov 2017 at 02:04 PM.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Nov 2017, 02:16 PM   #680939 / #1182
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
I reconcile it a bit like this. He is not depicted as a monster in the old testament, but only as God being God. He, and only he, has the right to do whatever the hell He/She likes. So, questioning God, is a folly from the start. You can of course ask questions, but don't stand around and think you know more than God, and that you can put God on trial in your infantile court.
So he's like Hitler, who was just being Hitler, and did whatever the hell he liked. (note to everyone else: I don't give a fuck about Godwin or his law; sometimes invoking Swastika Boy makes sense)

In both cases, their actions make them monsters. It is not necessary for the narrative to proclaim them as such. It's fucking obvious.
Quote:
God may have punished and smote and rebuked and all sorts of good stuff, but it would have been out of righteousness everytime. Right overcoming wrong. He's in control dudes, and he works in mysterious ways (didn't you hear?).
Righteousness being defined by the writer. "Mysterious ways" being "his behavior makes absolutely no sense".
Quote:
So, no dichotomy for me between the two. He may have been a bit more of a bitch in scene one, and mellowed out in the second (or remained more quiet) but that's God doing it God's way.
Yet other biblebangers claim he never changes. If the shit was even remotely coherent, maybe you guys would be able keep your story straight.

Last edited by Jackrabbit; 23 Nov 2017 at 03:21 PM.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Nov 2017, 03:15 PM   #680944 / #1183
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,781
Default

ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Nov 2017, 03:53 PM   #680950 / #1184
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 26,148
Default

1I, have you ever actually read the Bible- not just the verses assigned for a particular Sunday School lesson, but the whole thing, cover to cover?

I think I mentioned to you that most unbelievers from Christian backgrounds and societies rate the Bible as the book which most influenced their loss of faith. It was certainly true for me- I started at Genesis when I was 14, finished it before I was 16- and before I turned 17 I was calling myself an atheist. The book is full of horrors and monstrosities- not from the Devil, but from God Himself. The Old Testament in particular, but the NT too- "Fear Him who can send you to Hell."

When I was a boy I asked how you could both fear someone, and love them at the same time. (I was lucky enough not to have abusive parents- I respected them but didn't fear them.)

I think that Ruby's remark about (Wikipedia)Stockholm Syndrome is most apropos.
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Nov 2017, 08:38 PM   #680958 / #1185
Roo St. Gallus
Loose Contact
 
Roo St. Gallus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 8,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
1I, have you ever actually read the Bible- not just the verses assigned for a particular Sunday School lesson, but the whole thing, cover to cover?

I think I mentioned to you that most unbelievers from Christian backgrounds and societies rate the Bible as the book which most influenced their loss of faith. It was certainly true for me- I started at Genesis when I was 14, finished it before I was 16- and before I turned 17 I was calling myself an atheist. The book is full of horrors and monstrosities- not from the Devil, but from God Himself. The Old Testament in particular, but the NT too- "Fear Him who can send you to Hell."

When I was a boy I asked how you could both fear someone, and love them at the same time. (I was lucky enough not to have abusive parents- I respected them but didn't fear them.)

I think that Ruby's remark about (Wikipedia)Stockholm Syndrome is most apropos.
My experience was quite similar. As an otherwise uncommitted individual conscience, I read the entire Bible, from beginning to end, as an adolescent. That insured that, for the remainder of my life, until the present day, I would never give it much credence.

And yes, I concur with Ruby's assessment.
__________________
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
Roo St. Gallus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Nov 2017, 02:44 PM   #681311 / #1186
Shake
Mostly harmless
 
Shake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 1,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
In summary, the God of the Old Testament behaves much like a human being.
He has a human form, suffers human weaknesses and displays human failings. He lives in remote high places and controls the elements.


I didn't get that = I think in the Old Testament God is still up in heaven, not on a mountain, but yes, he would have ultimate control of the elements. He did get angry yes. Apparently disappointed at human kinds hedonisom, or so the story goes. - so, yes God does have emotions, to a super Godlike degree. Is it possible for him to get angry - yes. He can experience all of the emotions that we have - only more so. Why didn't he control his anger = well, I don't know. But the thing is, if he was, he was. You could debate about how or why forever.
You seem to be sort of brushing off the "how or why" of his anger here, but it's critically important if you accept certain of the typically attributed characteristics given to God. Often, accepting one such of these attributes will wind up being problematic for others. How so? Let me explain: IMO one of the more benign is omniscience. If he is omniscient then we were created with full knowledge of what all of our actions would ever be. So then, from whence comes his anger if we were created to do exactly what we did? Is he not able to make us in such a way that we would obey and act according to his desires? Then he's not omnipotent. Is he able, but unwilling? Then he's not all-loving. Christian dogma often asserts that his forgiveness is limitless. But then why would he get angry? Also, why is there an unforgivable sin listed in the Bible? If he knows what we'll do prior even to our creation, how can he get angry for us acting according to our own nature (which he supposedly would have bestowed upon us)?


Quote:
He is astonishingly partisan and brutal by modern standards, with a taste for blood sacrifice. He is capricious, spiteful, bloodthirsty, and he had the same outlook and prejudices as Jews who lived 3,000 to 2,500 years ago. We might also note that he has no objection to capital or corporal punishment, genocide, mutilation, polygamy, concubinage, slavery or racism. Indeed he encourages all of them.

I would say that he is perfectly aware of all these things, and if they happen, he's able to rise above it all (though he did display a bit of anger) but the thing is, God doesn't encourage that stuff - it's the stuff that we do because we are lacking in love, and God is love. He is love, but don't take him for a fool or a pushover, if you push God, he's going to have the last laugh. It's his way or the highway - and the highway goes out into the dark. But don't blame God for the darkness or your choice to turn away into it.
His omniscience would negate our being able to play him for a fool. He should know every trick we could ever come up with. Besides, Isaiah 45:7 tells us how he creates the dark and the light, good and evil.

Quote:
All in all, the God of the Old Testament is a perfect example of an ancient tribal sky god.

Except, there can only be one God of Gods, and in this one case, God is God and not an ancient tribal sky god. He might have some characteristics of, but is far apart from that as true is from false.
So, you're admitting a hierarchy of deities?

Quote:
How do Christians reconcile their merciful, omniscient and omnipotent God with this monster depicted in the Old Testament?

I reconcile it a bit like this. He is not depicted as a monster in the old testament, but only as God being God. He, and only he, has the right to do whatever the hell He/She likes. So, questioning God, is a folly from the start. You can of course ask questions, but don't stand around and think you know more than God, and that you can put God on trial in your infantile court.
Well, I've certainly asked my share of questions. Unfortunately, I've not received satisfactory answers for them as yet. And why not put God on trial? He breaks his own laws, and by his own standards is deserving of punishment for hypocrisy if nothing else.

Quote:
God may have punished and smote and rebuked and all sorts of good stuff, but it would have been out of righteousness every time. Right overcoming wrong. He's in control dudes, and he works in mysterious ways (didn't you hear?).
I did hear that about how he works, and it's an awfully convenient way to weasel your way out contradictions and hypocrisy when things don't go your way. It's a way to "explain" the failings of things like unanswered prayers or unfulfilled prophecies. Working backwards here, I have to ask: so then, does that make murder right if God wills/commands it, even though it goes against his written law? I was recently reminded of the example of when just after bringing down the Decalogue, which includes the law against murder, Moses has thousands in the camps murdered.

Quote:
So, no dichotomy for me between the two. He may have been a bit more of a bitch in scene one, and mellowed out in the second (or remained more quiet) but that's God doing it God's way.
Again, how very convenient. The whole story is just failed basic logic. As the "creator of all" why introduce evil? He knows what the consequences of evil will be yet does nothing to stop it. Why not start with post-flood type people, and give them the 10 Commandments right off the bat? Or go back further still: why put a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and then fault the people for eating from it? They only realized — and indeed, could only realize — after eating from it, they'd done wrong. No, he fails his own "deadly sin" of envy by being jealous of having to share that knowledge with his creations.
Shake is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 09:48 AM   #682350 / #1187
1ICrying
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 62
Default

Merry Christmas!!!
1ICrying is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 02:12 PM   #682356 / #1188
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 26,148
Default

Quote:
...As John the Baptist is rumored to have said upon seeing Jesus for the first time, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). For most Christians, this bizarre opinion still stands, and it remains the core of their faith. Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man—his son, incidentally—in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.

Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross.

The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a “loving” God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the scapegoating barbarism that has plagued bewildered people throughout history. Viewed in a modern context, it is an idea at once so depraved and fantastical that it is hard to know where to begin to criticize it....
-From Sam Harris' The Sacrifice of Reason
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 02:12 PM   #682357 / #1189
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,258
Default

Jolly Ancient Zombie Day!!

Fortunately, my biblebanging parents didn't consider it a religious holiday ("no one knows the actual date", assuming there was one), so I didn't have that shit polluting it and could just enjoy the presents and family gathering. No mention of zombies, ancient or contemporary. They played/sang the winter carols (Jingle Bells, etc), not the zombie carols.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 02:21 PM   #682358 / #1190
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Quote:
...As John the Baptist is rumored to have said upon seeing Jesus for the first time, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). For most Christians, this bizarre opinion still stands, and it remains the core of their faith. Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man—his son, incidentally—in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.

Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross.

The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a “loving” God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the scapegoating barbarism that has plagued bewildered people throughout history. Viewed in a modern context, it is an idea at once so depraved and fantastical that it is hard to know where to begin to criticize it....
-From Sam Harris' The Sacrifice of Reason
You make it sound like God himself did the killing. Knowing what will happen and doing it anyway, is not the same thing as desiring that it should be done. Everyone in the story had choices.
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 02:25 PM   #682359 / #1191
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
You can of course ask questions, but don't stand around and think you know more than God, and that you can put God on trial in your infantile court.
Didn't pick up on this earlier.

You have an imaginary friend and then call us infantile?
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 02:28 PM   #682360 / #1192
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Quote:
...As John the Baptist is rumored to have said upon seeing Jesus for the first time, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). For most Christians, this bizarre opinion still stands, and it remains the core of their faith. Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man—his son, incidentally—in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.

Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross.

The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a “loving” God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the scapegoating barbarism that has plagued bewildered people throughout history. Viewed in a modern context, it is an idea at once so depraved and fantastical that it is hard to know where to begin to criticize it....
-From Sam Harris' The Sacrifice of Reason
You make it sound like God himself did the killing. Knowing what will happen and doing it anyway, is not the same thing as desiring that it should be done. Everyone in the story had choices.
Which is what a dishonest cop would say about entrapment. "I didn't make him do it, I just set things up so that he would be tempted to."
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 02:49 PM   #682361 / #1193
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Which is what a dishonest cop would say about entrapment. "I didn't make him do it, I just set things up so that he would be tempted to."
What, you think murder is the only and obvious response to a street preacher? How is it unavoidably "tempting" to murder Jesus?
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 03:05 PM   #682362 / #1194
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,258
Default

I was referring to "evil" in general. If goddy-poo don't like it, and will burn you for it, it shouldn't exist. What, he didn't have the power to get rid of it?

In the specific case of jeebus, if they had just ignored the fucker as they should have, where would the story be? They were supposed to do that. There had to be a "sacrifice". It was part of the plot.

If goddy-poo wanted to "forgive sins", he could have just fucking done it without all the melodrama. Or just not had it in the first place.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 03:23 PM   #682363 / #1195
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
You make it sound like God himself did the killing.
Because he did.

Quote:
Knowing what will happen and doing it anyway, is not the same thing as desiring that it should be done.
It is absolutely the exact same thing, especially when you (a) require it in order to appease yourself of your own wrath instead of just not having any wrath to begin with or, you know, taking a breath and counting to ten and (b) have both the foresight to know the outcome and the power to do literally anything.

You are describing a powerless situation, where poor put-upon Jehovah reluctantly has no choice in the matter or outcome. Which directly contradicts your statement:

Quote:
Everyone in the story had choices.
Not just “choices”:

Quote:
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”...He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.
That’s three times god begged himself not to kill himself, so aside from the obvious question (why would god—or his son and/or a divine being/messenger of some fashion—waste any time at all praying to himself/his father, let alone three times, if it were useless?), Jesus here confirms that the choice was entirely god’s.

There’s no question of breaching free will here; this is god praying to himself three times—begging, no less—for god to choose a different outcome, so evidently Jesus believed god/himself had the power to change the outcome. Which means—at least in Jesus’ mind—god killed Jesus by not changing the outcome.

Even if you remove the trinity nonsense, it’s still the story of a divine messenger from god begging for his life and confirming—three times—that it was god’s will that he be killed instead of just not blaming all of humanity for the actions of Adam and Eve (in spite of the fact that he already washed the slate clean and started over with Noah).

No matter how you slice it, it’s just incredibly bad fiction. Boiled down to basics, it’s the story of an all powerful father requiring the fatal sacrifice of his innocent son to “pay” for the crimes committed by his other criminal sons and daughters.

That’s simply reprehensible.
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 03:34 PM   #682364 / #1196
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
You make it sound like God himself did the killing.
Because he did.

Quote:
Knowing what will happen and doing it anyway, is not the same thing as desiring that it should be done.
It is absolutely the exact same thing, especially when you (a) require it in order to appease yourself of your own wrath instead of just not having any wrath to begin with or, you know, taking a breath and counting to ten and (b) have both the foresight to know the outcome and the power to do literally anything.

You are describing a powerless situation, where poor put-upon Jehovah reluctantly has no choice in the matter or outcome. Which directly contradicts your statement:

Quote:
Everyone in the story had choices.
Not just “choices”:

Quote:
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”...He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.
That’s three times god begged himself not to kill himself, so aside from the obvious question (why would god—or his son and/or a divine being/messenger of some fashion—waste any time at all praying to himself/his father, let alone three times, if it were useless?), Jesus here confirms that the choice was entirely god’s.

There’s no question of breaching free will here; this is god praying to himself three times—begging, no less—for god to choose a different outcome, so evidently Jesus believed god/himself had the power to change the outcome. Which means—at least in Jesus’ mind—god killed Jesus by not changing the outcome.

Even if you remove the trinity nonsense, it’s still the story of a divine messenger from god begging for his life and confirming—three times—that it was god’s will that he be killed instead of just not blaming all of humanity for the actions of Adam and Eve (in spite of the fact that he already washed the slate clean and started over with Noah).

No matter how you slice it, it’s just incredibly bad fiction. Boiled down to basics, it’s the story of an all powerful father requiring the fatal sacrifice of his innocent son to “pay” for the crimes committed by his other criminal sons and daughters.

That’s simply reprehensible.
Well, the medieval payment nonsense will have to wait for another "apologist".
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Dec 2017, 03:37 PM   #682365 / #1197
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,305
Default

Fine, then deal with your contradiction in regard to god not having any choices while at the same time stating that everyone in the story has choices. It’s amazing how powerless this all powerful being becomes when it suits the argument.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 27 Dec 2017, 02:58 AM   #682370 / #1198
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 26,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Quote:
...As John the Baptist is rumored to have said upon seeing Jesus for the first time, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). For most Christians, this bizarre opinion still stands, and it remains the core of their faith. Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man—his son, incidentally—in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.

Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross.

The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a “loving” God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the scapegoating barbarism that has plagued bewildered people throughout history. Viewed in a modern context, it is an idea at once so depraved and fantastical that it is hard to know where to begin to criticize it....
-From Sam Harris' The Sacrifice of Reason
You make it sound like God himself did the killing. Knowing what will happen and doing it anyway, is not the same thing as desiring that it should be done. Everyone in the story had choices.
Especially God. Omnipotence gives you infinite choices, y'know.

And according to the story, God chose human sacrifice. A particularly bloody and awful one. Of his own son.

Poli, doesn't that creep you out even slightly? (1I, same question.)
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 27 Dec 2017, 03:51 AM   #682372 / #1199
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Quote:
...As John the Baptist is rumored to have said upon seeing Jesus for the first time, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). For most Christians, this bizarre opinion still stands, and it remains the core of their faith. Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man—his son, incidentally—in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.

Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross.

The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a “loving” God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the scapegoating barbarism that has plagued bewildered people throughout history. Viewed in a modern context, it is an idea at once so depraved and fantastical that it is hard to know where to begin to criticize it....
-From Sam Harris' The Sacrifice of Reason
You make it sound like God himself did the killing. Knowing what will happen and doing it anyway, is not the same thing as desiring that it should be done. Everyone in the story had choices.
Especially God. Omnipotence gives you infinite choices, y'know.

And according to the story, God chose human sacrifice. A particularly bloody and awful one. Of his own son.

Poli, doesn't that creep you out even slightly? (1I, same question.)
Well, yes. Feudalist nonsense in my opinion. I don't have a soteriology to speak of, before you ask.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 27 Dec 2017, 03:53 AM   #682373 / #1200
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Fine, then deal with your contradiction in regard to god not having any choices while at the same time stating that everyone in the story has choices. It’s amazing how powerless this all powerful being becomes when it suits the argument.
I'm not sure how that is my contradiction. All I said was that everyone in the story has choices; that includes God, but I think it absurd to blame him for a murder that others committed.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus