Occasionally a theist makes an argument so amusingly stupid that it would be a shame not to share it with a larger audience. This is one of those occasions.
On another thread, we’ve been discussing the unloving way in which God — supposing that he exists at all — is treating the victims of Hurricane Harvey (and the soon-to-be victims of Hurricane Irma, unfortunately). In the course of that discussion, fifthmonarchyman — a Christian — made the following, er, memorable argument:
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
– Isaiah 45:7
keiths:
Yes, and creating disaster for his children is exactly what every loving father sets out to do. Right, Mung?
Nothing says “I love you” like drowning someone or wiping out their possessions.
At that point fifthmonarchyman got the bright idea that he could defend God by arguing that God is not our father. He wrote:
quote:
the Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could it be that He should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him – since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? – Sura 6:101
and
and say: “All praise is due to God, who begets no offspring, and has no partner in His dominion, and has no weakness, and therefore no need of any aid” -and [thus] extol His limitless greatness. – Sura 17:111
end quote:
That’s right, folks. Fifthmonarchyman quoted the Quran to argue against the idea that God is our father — forgetting that the latter idea comes straight from Jesus. What are the first two words of the Lord’s Prayer? Our Father.
Seeing fifth — a Christian — use the Quran to argue (unwittingly) against Jesus is one of the stupidest moves I’ve seen in a long while. I therefore renominate fifth for the title of World’s Worst Apologist.
After posting his comment, fifth belatedly realized that he had just thrown Jesus under the bus. He tried to undo the damage:
Get it keiths ?
A loving father is not the default understanding of God. Not by a long shot.
To know him as Father you need to have met his Son. Once you have met his Son you are simply not dissuaded when bad things happen.
peace
It’s a bit too late to backpedal, fifth.
This is a good time to quote Augustine again, on the topic of Christians who make fools of themselves:
…we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The inanity goes even deeper. I’ll elaborate in the comments.
Woodbine, to J-Mac:
God does, according to the Bible:
Verses like that make most believers squirm, since it’s neither just nor loving to punish descendants for the sins of their ancestors.
Fifth, on the other hand, actually chose to post that verse.
World’s Worst Apologist.
I don’t think you understand the issue…
You are looking at it from the prospective of a crime that requires punishment of the perpetrators that can be rehabilitated and their criminal record erased…
This is not the case with Adam and Eve..
I recommend you read the verses in Genesis chapter 2-3, so that you may be able to discern the issue and the difference between the willful rebellion leading to sin and crime according to our laws…
Why would you think God is actively punishing the descendants if He was the one who warned about the consequences of rebellion?
Do you understand the consequences if God had shielded Adam and Eve from the consequences of their rebellion? I don’t think so…
keiths, to J-Mac:
J-Mac:
Depends on your answer, but my question is about what you believe.
Your question is not an answer.
That doesn’t answer my question, which was:
I did…And?
J-Mac, to Woodbine:
Because the Bible says he does that:
Do you think the Bible is wrong about that?
ETA: Vincent, I’d also be curious to know whether you think the Bible is wrong about that. And more generally, whether you think it is inerrant. I know you don’t interpret it literally, but I’m not sure I’ve ever heard you state that it contains errors.
j-mac
Why stop at the first generation? for instance a son or daughter of a drunken mother who was kicked out of their house and neighborhood due to the drunken behavior and habits of the mother gets married and has children and those children have kids as well. Now following your logic visiting the sins on the grandchildren and great grandchildren on is a reasonable proposition and there is no problem kicking those individuals out of their homes and it is a reasonable proposition to have them live in a dumpster. It isn’t God’s fault now but whose fault would it be? I guess just being born into that familial line is sufficient reason for visiting the sins of the great grandmother (or grandmother) since after all it is just as you saidt :
in that same sentiment someone else once said:
— Col. John Milton Chivington
keiths,
Since you didn’t answer my question, I’m not going to give you my answer…
Deadly hurricanes are not fully understood. However, it is well known that human activity contributes to their intensity…
If global warming is true and human activity, including pollution and overpopulation in small regions, causes imbalances in nature, then it is obvious that deadly hurricanes are not the direct result of sin…Their intensity maybe the result of humans sinning or abusing the natural resources etc. but that is not the same thing…
Lol
Did read the context of those verses? I’m sure you did…
The Bible also says “…there is no God…” Ps 14;1 Lol
But I’m sure you already knew that since you know the Bible way better than me…
Did you find out what would have happened, if God had spared Adam and Eve from the consequences of their sin?
J-Mac,
Feel free to explain how the context alters the meaning of that verse.
Hint: It doesn’t.
Of course it doesn’t. Because the verses related to our theme are found Genesis 2:16 and 17:
“God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
The question still remains:
What would happen if God had shielded Adam and Eve from the consequences of their disobedience and sin?
You should know…You are a bible scholar…
J-Mac:
OK. So if deadly hurricanes are not the result of sin, but deaths due to deadly hurricanes are the result of sin, then please describe to us how sin is causing the hurricane deaths. Sketch out the causal chain.
You are confused…Deaths to due deadly hurricanes are the result of being in the path of the hurricanes…
I’m sure you can appreciate that you are not…;-) I hope…
I’m not …but that can change…lol
Focus, J-Mac.
It might help to review our exchange:
J-Mac, to Woodbine:
keiths:
Do you think the Bible is wrong about that?
J-Mac:
keiths:
J-Mac:
OK. So according to you, the context does alter the meaning of that verse, and “of course” it does not alter the meaning of that verse.
Reflect on that for a while and see if you can spot the problem.
J-Mac:
Heh.
J-Mac,
According to you, death — and that includes death by hurricane — is the result of sin:
How does that work? How does sin cause hurricane deaths?
I agree that I have no reason to call some one an ideologue just because they disagree with me I do have a reason if the person is……
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.
That is pretty much the definition of ideologue. 😉
So if someone thinks your opinions are incorrect he is an ignorant stereotyping dogmatist and at the same time he has no reason to call you an ideologue
Got it
One of the problems with Darwinism is that it undermines the argument that we can know anything at all beyond what is necessary for basic survival.
So saying that Darwinism is in accordance with “well-established (pragmatically successful) epistemology” is perhaps a bit of a stretch.
peace
keiths,
Well…your scholarly intuition seems to be failing you keiths…
I’m surprised…
The verses you quote:
“… You shall not bow down to them or worship them..”
apply to whom? What kind of punishment are we talking about and for what???
Focus keiths! Focus! You can do it…
You can’t be serious?
infinite eternal recycling 😉
peace
and
quote:
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
end quote:
Romans 12:18-20
😉
peace
keiths, to J-Mac:
J-Mac:
Um, you wrote it, J-Mac.
J-Mac:
You do realize that we’re talking about the Ten Commandments here, don’t you?
So now you’re agreeing that God punishes descendants for the sins of their ancestors, but arguing that it’s only for certain sins?
Why did you write this, then?
The answer, again, is that the Bible says so, in the very verse I presented to you. Having denied it, you now seem to be agreeing with it!
J-Mac:
Um, you wrote it, J-Mac.
I’m no longer surprised…You are proving again keiths that you are confused…
Adam and Eve’s sin led to death as a result of ageing not of them being in the wrong place at the wrong time…
So now you are going to put words in my mouth?
Please tell me that when you were studying the bible to become the scholar, you didn’t believe that if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned they would not have died, or injured themselves, if they had fallen off a cliff or something, did you?
Here is the entirety of God’s warning about the consequences of rebellion….
Can you provide any evidence that Adam and Eve were warned about the serpent, increased pain in childbirth, patriarchal rule, and the ‘cursing of the ground’ which seems to account for all manner of present day physiological, geological and meteorological horrors prior to them eating the forbidden fruit?
I also can’t provide evidence that Adam and Eve were warned about overeating, over-drinking, using apples as weapons and zucchini as sex-toys, trying to follow geese and fly off the cliff, diving longer than 3 hours at the time without oxygen supply, playing football with mammoths or hockey with dinosaurs…
‘No’ would have sufficed.
And yet you maintain that God….
….when he did no such thing.
You’re free to imagine God furnished Adam with a full understanding of the consequences of rebellion, but that’s all it is – a figment of your imagination.
If Adam and Eve hadn’t have the knowledge of simple little things, there would have been forests of trees of knowledge…not just one…
Why the need for more than one tree of knowledge? Sems like one would be more than sufficient.
What did Adam and Eve know and what did they not know?
Woodbine suggested Adam and Eve should have been warned about every little detail of the dangers of their rebellion…
I agree with you; one tree was sufficient…
You’re making the claim that Adam was fully aware of the consequences of rebellion. It might be theologically comforting for you but it’s entirely speculative.
And even if Adam was fully aware of the consequences it still doesn’t explain why God (being infinitely loving and just) would curse the planet and all its subsequent inhabitants (human and non-human) for the crimes of two individuals.
God actively chose to do this.
Do you think it is just to punish descendants for the crimes of their ancestors?
Do you think that is reasonable?
I made no such suggestion.
It is you who is arguing, without any biblical support, that Adam and Eve knew what would be the consequences if they ate from the tree.
J-Mac:
J-Mac,
You don’t even realize that you’re undermining your own argument, do you?
You are one lost, confused dude.
Woodbine,
So…you are not getting it… Fine…
You keep asking the same questions using different words…okay…
You keep insisting I answer questions I have suggested more than once answers to them should be easily inferred…I get it.
So, you are a moron…Who would you like to blame?
How about not ‘suggesting answers’ (AKA hand-waving) and just answer them?
Do you think it is just to punish descendants for the crimes of their ancestors?
Do you think that is reasonable?
You can continue quote-mining but I have no further interest in reading them over again…I hope you get this part…
Goodbye!
This is just another proof you are not getting anything…
You are repeating the same questions keiths and you asked which I already answered…
You both seem to have the same level of comprehension issues…I think I know why…
Woodbine, to Sal:
Allan:
Ask, and ye shall receive.
Yes.
Yes.
Yikes.
J-Mac will never figure this out on his own, so I’d better explain it. Slooowly.
J-Mac,
Let’s take this step by step.
1. I’ve argued that God, if he exists at all, is not the powerful and loving God that Christians take him to be.
2. I’ve used hurricanes Harvey and Irma to make my point. When you love someone, you don’t set out to drown them, destroy their home, or ruin their possessions.
3. You tried to get God off the hook, writing:
4. After stumbling over your shoelaces for a while, fulminating against me and Woodbine, you finally announced:
5. So after insisting (see #3) that hurricane deaths are the result of Adam and Eve’s sin, you’re now insisting that they are not the result of Adam and Eve’s sin. Only deaths due to aging are.
6. That means that instead of getting God off the hook for the hurricane deaths and destruction, as you originally intended, you lost focus and ended up trying to get Adam and Eve off the hook, instead.
7. That is known as “shooting yourself in the foot” or “an own goal”, and it’s the kind of thing that makes people laugh at you.
You are lost and confused.
And of course, that still leaves Woodbine’s questions:
Mung’s answers are ‘yes’ and ‘yes’, which is not surprising. It’s unjust and unloving, and that’s exactly what Mung wants: a God in his own image.
I’ve been watching a few Youtube videos of Irma hitting Cuba and invariably the comments are filled with pleas to God to protect and shelter those in the hurricane’s path.
I’ve yet to see any prayers asking for God to, you know, make the hurricane disappear.
That’s because they know that God does not have that ability. “Omnipotent” turns out to be a misspelling of “impotent”.
Woodbine,
Which should be just as easy for an omnipotent God as the other things they’re asking him to do.
Many and perhaps most believers have an an automatic and unquestioned belief that good things are from God, and bad things aren’t. It never occurs to them that an omnipotent God is responsible for both.
Until someone points it out, that is. Then the believers are caught flat-footed. As we’ve seen in this thread.
I’m still waiting for someone — anyone — to explain why their supposedly loving God is drowning people and destroying homes.
Yep.
Consciously (or subconsciously) they already know it’s not worth praying for the obvious solution – but as long as there are some “I was trapped under my house for four days, I prayed to God, and then the rescuers found me!” stories to share among their credulous peers (like Sal) then that’s enough to sustain their faith.
The Skeptical Moron Zone
Mung:
That’s Mung. No arguments, just impotent rage.