If you’ve heard the “Jesus may not have been God, but his teachings were still good” argument, watch this. Jesus is just a big asshole.
Posts tagged christianity.
The pink tabs are for murder, purple for human or animal sacrifice, blue for rape, yellow for slavery and green for misogyny.
I want to do this.
This is a goal I have.
You antitheists are all the same, you complain God is a tyrant, but then you say things like that. He must remove you from the premises? I thought free will was important to you. God teaches us, and hopes that we choose not to harm ourselves. You want God to force you to listen to him, you want him to take away your free will. I’m sorry, but I want to love God, not be an automaton.
Before I begin my response, I will respectfully ask you not to call me an anti-theist. Anti-your-religion isn’t anti-religion. Moreover, we are not all the same. Such sweeping generalizations are a sign of ignorance.
As for your points. Again, according to Neuroscience, free will is an illusion. There are many more articles that support my assertion. However, I’ll also address your point from a religious perspective.
God is said to be omniscient.
The Bible tells us that God does perceive all things, which means that no fact can be hidden from His knowledge. As King David recognized: “Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You” (Psalm 139:12). God sees all things, and nothing can be hidden from His knowledge—not even the secret intentions of the heart (Psalm 44:21). In fact, He understands our own intentions better than we do (cf. Jeremiah 17:9-10; Hebrews 4:12)! As Paul explains, “there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13).
If he knows all things, where would that leave free will assuming there’s a such thing? Free will is impossible when granting an omniscient god. Thus, it is no curious thing that the Bible supports predestination:
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
What would this verse imply? This verse would imply that all of my successes and failures are written in his book. This verse would imply that all of my choices have already been made. When considering that god is said to be omniscient and when considering this verse, how can you conclude that there’s a such thing as free will? Your god would leave no room for free will. Thus, whether your fate is heaven or hell, this god would already know. In other words, he would allow the existence of a sinner even though he knows they’ll never repent of their sins; he would damn him/her to hell before his/her life plays out. If Satan comes to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10), why would your god allow him the satisfaction? Why would he provide the victims? Thus, if he existed, he would be undoubtedly evil.
God allowed Sin to enter the world for our benefit. Sin is simply choosing that which God is not in. Sin is simply the absence of God. For example, killing. God knew that a world where killing was good and moral would be a bad world for humanity, and recognizing that killing was bad, he chose not to be a part of it. Thus, killing is a sin because it is not of God.
I’m not going to bother addressing the beginning of your sermon. However, the irrationality of your sermon can be summarized by your last sentence. Killing is not of god? Which god are we talking about here? Aren’t we talking about Yahweh, the Israeli god of war? Aren’t we talking about he that sent the angel of the Lord to slay innocent men due to David’s sin (1 Chronicles 21)? Aren’t we talking about he that murdered the first born of Egypt (Exodus 11:5)? Aren’t we talking about he that dashes infants to the ground and cuts open pregnant women (Hosea 13:16)? Killing is not of god? Murder defines your god. Want more examples? There are definitely more!
Why not make a world without sin? Where killing is impossible? Well, that runs into the issue of free will again.
Which is effectively a non-issue at this point.
Can you make a world where one can be brave, without also leaving them the choice to be a coward?
Can you make a world where one can be charitable, without also leaving them the choice to be cold and hard of heart? Can you make a world where one can be truly humble, without also leaving them the choice to be proud jerks? Can you make a world where one can love, without also leaving them the choice to be indifferent? To be truly good requires an act of the will to be good, and you can only truly choose to be good if you have another option. Therefore, to have virtue, you must allow the choice to sin, which will mean, that some people will choose to sin.
As usual, all of the above analogies were ineffective. However, I will address your final points. “Sin” is abstraction of the Christian faith. It is a word that has stemmed from another abstraction, namely ethics — a conception that had no place in our ancestors. Ethics is a byproduct of language and language is a byproduct of our Evolution. Without language, we wouldn’t speak of “sin”. Your god didn’t allow “sin”. “Sin” is a derivative of our trial and error. Humanity is in its infancy. Due to this, we have paid terrible prices during the learning curve. Racism still exists. Religious wars are still being fought. Countries go to war due to ideological differences, claims over resources, claims over territory(ies), etc. In short, we are learning how to coexist and “sin” is a derivative of that learning curve. Then you will probably get more specific. You will probably mention sex addiction, drug abuse, etc. All of these so called sins are byproducts of societal pressures. Both sex and drugs can be means for withdrawal. They can both serve as ways of escaping the harsh nature of certain realities. When considering the fragility of the human psyche, one has to understand these kinds of addictions. Only your god would see them as abnormal and damn someone eternally for have a 20 year drug addiction. Do you see the sense in that? Isn’t it more humane to put a person through rehab? Isn’t it more humane to bring the person to an understanding of the harmful nature of his/her actions? Why would anything reserve the right to damn someone eternally for having a sex addiction? The nature of punishing “sin” — according to Christianity — is inhumane. The nature of the word itself is ill-defined.
Speaking of Sin, you bring up Satan which is another interesting case of free will. You keep repeating that God created Satan. This is true, but God created him as good. It is Satan who out of His own free will chose to rebel. So God cannot be blamed for the evil of Satan.
According to the Bible, god did create him as good. However, according to the Bible, god would have foresaw his rebellion. Thus, god would still be blamed.
Only Satan can be held responsible for Satan. Just as Man must be responsible for Man. Now you might ask, “Could Satan ever become good again?” The answer is no. Angels are different from humans. Angels act with perfect knowledge of the consequences of their actions and their will is eternal. Therefore, when Satan rebelled from God, his rebellion was an eternal fact. God would love to welcome Satan back to Heaven, but Satan would never accept God’s forgiveness because Satan still believes in his rebellion as much as He did on the day it happened. And that is where we differ from angels.
This entire section is a sermon. Moreover, it is based on the assumption that I know nothing of your religion. Well, let me break it to you, I know enough about the Bible to preach sermons. If I wanted to, I could preach in a church. I think my knowledge of Christian theology would shock you. You’re preaching to the choir though this choir no longer praises your god.
We do not have perfect knowledge of the consequences of our actions. When we act, we often act out of partial ignorance. Therefore, when we act, we act with a will that is subject to change. When we sin, we can recognize the wrongness of our actions and change, and that is where Christ comes in. First of all, God the Father did not become Christ. Christ is of the same substance as God the Father, but He is a separate and unique person, though still God. Christ came and chose to die for us all. Not for an elect few, but for all the world, in order to give us a way out from the sin that we cast upon ourselves in our ignorance, out of the world.
Well, you’ve ventured into the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. You based your argument on John 3:16 whilst ignoring the Calvinist tenet of limited atonement:
Limited atonement (also known as “definite atonement”) is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, “for whose sins did Christ atone?” The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church — the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name “Christian” (Ephesians 5:25).
Thus, my point stands, Christ’s sacrifice would apply to an elected few. However, your point also stands; therefore, that leads to a clearly defined contradiction. What was that about the Bible being inerrant? Not quite. Both sides have argued for over four centuries. The issue is going no where and unfortunately, there’s no way to reconcile both point of views. Attempts have been made, albeit futile.
Now, some charges are, ‘Why did Christ have to die? If He was truly omnipotent, couldn’t he have forgiven our sins without dying?’ Well, there might be a theological response. One of the following:
1. God is just, and in his justice He made laws in order that life may be good. Laws have consequences or else they are not laws, and the punishment for breaking the laws of God is death. God in his mercy has paid the price for our transgressions, so that we are not condemned to death but that we may be saved through Him.
Again, you are preaching to the songless choir. These faith-based assertions are baseless assertions in my book. Furthermore, in a formal debate that takes place within the confines of philosophical stipulations, this entire section would be considered red herring. It is a long-winded sermon about the sacrifice of Christ. It logically follows your previous section, but it utterly fails at addressing any of the points I’ve made, which is rather unfortunate when considering that I continue to make points.
And this is fine, but I think there is something deeper.
Christ died to show us how we must love each other. We must sacrifice for each other. For God showed his love for us, by sacrificing his Son. If he could merely erase a debt, then that shows no self-sacrificial love on his part. But by sacrificing the most perfect human being to ever exist for us, He shows that He loves us and forgives us for our transgressions.
Beautiful sermon indeed and one that I have heard too many times to count. This isn’t a formal debate. Thus, I’ll throw a fish of my own. What would you say to this?
29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break.”
36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”
38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
For god so loved Jephthah that he took his only daughter, his only child!
Your god seems to get a kick out of sacrificing humans. Doesn’t sound like someone I want to worship.
You think God is a terrible parent because he gives us free will, and that is sad.
I never said that he is a terrible father for that reason. Reread my argument and ignore free will this time around. Free will is an illusion according to Neuroscience and an impossibility when considering that your god is said to be omniscient. Therefore, he would be a terrible parent because he would foresee our suffering and allow it. If a dream/vision told you that your child was going to die in an accident involving his/her school bus, you would pick up your child from school hours before the accident. Some may go a step further and warn the other children not to board the bus. Your god would foresee my damnation and allow it.
Now, to respond to the question about God’s mental health:
If God were a person, he would be diagnosed with various mental illnesses and personality disorders. I vote for narcissistic personality disorder, with a bit of borderline characteristics, for starters.
Narcissists do not make sacrifices for others. God sacrificed everything for us. Christ humbled himself by taking on Human form, and not a kingly form, but a humble child born in a manger. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is not a narcissistic personality.
Yes, but the jealous and angry god of the Old Testament is a narcissist. One that preaches “love thy neighbor as you love yourself” whilst preaching “I have come to turn a man against his father,a daughter against her mother,a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household (Matthew 10:34)” is also a narcissist. Therefore, the assessment was correct.
Finally, you say, “If God was a person…” Well, He’s not. He’s God. God having a God complex would not exactly be surprising. What is surprising is that while Our God is infallible and omnipotent like those with God complexes think they are, our God does not ask for special privileges. Rather, our God sacrifices for us, He serves us, and therefore does not at all resemble anyone with what is usually considered to be a God complex.
Infallible? Are you sure about that? Are we talking about the god who created the Earth before the stars? Wouldn’t he know that this is impossible? Are we talking about the god who called the Sun a greater light? Wouldn’t he know that the Sun is also a star? Are we talking about the god who called the Moon a lesser light whilst ignoring the fact that the Moon is more planet-like than star-like? Are we talking about the god who recorded four different accounts of Saul’s death? Are you done preaching yet?
At least other cultures are willing to admit that their deities are not perfect beings.
Why worship anything that is not perfect? If God were not perfect, I would not think to worship Him. It is because He is perfect that I worship Him. Even Epicurus knew that.
As if mentioning a known philosopher will help your case. You worship a sorry excuse for a god. In your bias, you have chosen to see him from one angle — an indoctrinated angle I might add. You have ignored his imperfections. Remove your visor and see clearly.
I could not get through all this (short attention span at the moment), but I love when atheists systemically tear apart Christian arguments. Maybe some of my followers will enjoy this too.
Sasha Grey <3
I’m out. In the name of Christ.
Why do Christians always back out of the argument right as it’s getting good? I can’t win if you stop arguing!
PERFECT analogy of the Bible and Christians.
For truth, justice, and reasons.
I understand the point this is making, but regardless of what the victim (or whatever the case may be) the robber STILL KILLED THEM. If I choose to leave my door unlocked, and someone into my house, that doesn’t mean I’m choosing to have someone break into my house.
actually, because “God” created us all and controls everything in the universe, he MADE the robber who killed you, knowing that the robber was going to do that (because a god, by definition is all-knowing). So really, every person who ever dies is killed by God. So yes, the robber would kill you if you disobey them, but God kills you no matter what AND sentences you to ETERNAL DAMNATION if you do not worship him. While the similarities between the two are appalling, I would definitely argue that God is worse than the robber.
And your analogy with the breaking into the house doesn’t make any sense. But let’s say you do leave your door unlocked and someone breaks into your house. God knew that was going to happen from the dawn of time and he let it happen and whatever happens (whether the robber kills you or not) he decided to let it happen because he is all-powerful and could stop it if he wanted.