God is a Monstrous, Evil, Bloodthirsty Tyrant

[Dragon]

I mean the God of traditional Christian theology, of course. Consider:

1) He made human beings fallible, then expected them to be perfect.

2) Because they sought the knowledge of good and evil -- that is, tried to develop a conscience -- he condemned not only those who did this, but all of their descendants, to be tortured forever and ever.

3) For thousands of years, everyone (with perhaps a very few exceptions -- theory isn't clear on this) were sentenced to be tortured forever and ever, since he had designed everyone to be perfect but judged them according to an unachievable standard.

4) After thousands of years and millions of victims, who were screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, doubtless to his pleasure and satisfaction, he sent his son to assume human form and be tortured to death. Apparently, although we're not told why, this was sufficient to appease the divine blood-lust.

5) Meanwhile, all those millions of victims continued to scream endlessly under horrible torture.

6) Although Jesus' being whipped with cords studded with sharp metal so that his flesh was ripped apart and then nailed to a piece of wood to die slowly over several hours supposedly appeased the divine sadism, most people continued to be condemned to scream forever under horrible tortures, as the only ones who could take advantage of Jesus' being abused in this way were those who believed in this story (which was offered without evidence) and submitted to the authority of the Church. (Although there is some dispute about that last minor point.)

This, we are told, is the creator of the universe, perfectly good, perfectly wise, and all-powerful. We are asked to believe that the sublime all-in-all is worse by far than any mere human despot, who must be content with torturing people for only finite amounts of time.

In fairness, it's not unlikely that someone like Torquemada or Hitler would have had people screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, too, were that humanly possible. So perhaps God is not actually morally worse than the worst examples of human depravity, but merely endowed with power that gives his depravity more dreadful consequences.

Be that as it may, it is reasonable to question whether this conception of God makes any sense -- and by that I mean, on this occasion, not logical or scientific sense, but moral sense.

Whenever I hear the statement, "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son," and I remember the divine blood-lust and cruelty and smarmy pretense that is supposed to accompany this "gift," I want to puke.

 

[daveman]

I mean the God of traditional Christian theology, of course. Consider:

1) He made human beings fallible, then expected them to be perfect.

When you start off with a fallacy, everything that follows may be safely discarded.

God doesn't expect us to be perfect. He expects us to try to be better people.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Dragon--

You may be looking for God in all the wrong places.

Come and check out the Testimony in Song thread here in the Religion forum.

It's got something for everyone.

sky

 

[AmericanFirst]

I mean the God of traditional Christian theology, of course. Consider:

1) He made human beings fallible, then expected them to be perfect.

2) Because they sought the knowledge of good and evil -- that is, tried to develop a conscience -- he condemned not only those who did this, but all of their descendants, to be tortured forever and ever.

3) For thousands of years, everyone (with perhaps a very few exceptions -- theory isn't clear on this) were sentenced to be tortured forever and ever, since he had designed everyone to be perfect but judged them according to an unachievable standard.

4) After thousands of years and millions of victims, who were screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, doubtless to his pleasure and satisfaction, he sent his son to assume human form and be tortured to death. Apparently, although we're not told why, this was sufficient to appease the divine blood-lust.

5) Meanwhile, all those millions of victims continued to scream endlessly under horrible torture.

6) Although Jesus' being whipped with cords studded with sharp metal so that his flesh was ripped apart and then nailed to a piece of wood to die slowly over several hours supposedly appeased the divine sadism, most people continued to be condemned to scream forever under horrible tortures, as the only ones who could take advantage of Jesus' being abused in this way were those who believed in this story (which was offered without evidence) and submitted to the authority of the Church. (Although there is some dispute about that last minor point.)

This, we are told, is the creator of the universe, perfectly good, perfectly wise, and all-powerful. We are asked to believe that the sublime all-in-all is worse by far than any mere human despot, who must be content with torturing people for only finite amounts of time.

In fairness, it's not unlikely that someone like Torquemada or Hitler would have had people screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, too, were that humanly possible. So perhaps God is not actually morally worse than the worst examples of human depravity, but merely endowed with power that gives his depravity more dreadful consequences.

Be that as it may, it is reasonable to question whether this conception of God makes any sense -- and by that I mean, on this occasion, not logical or scientific sense, but moral sense.

Whenever I hear the statement, "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son," and I remember the divine blood-lust and cruelty and smarmy pretense that is supposed to accompany this "gift," I want to puke.

Then shut up and puke already. You are so full of it you defecate out your mouth constantly.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I mean the God of traditional Christian theology, of course. Consider:

1) He made human beings fallible, then expected them to be perfect.

2) Because they sought the knowledge of good and evil -- that is, tried to develop a conscience -- he condemned not only those who did this, but all of their descendants, to be tortured forever and ever.

3) For thousands of years, everyone (with perhaps a very few exceptions -- theory isn't clear on this) were sentenced to be tortured forever and ever, since he had designed everyone to be perfect but judged them according to an unachievable standard.

4) After thousands of years and millions of victims, who were screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, doubtless to his pleasure and satisfaction, he sent his son to assume human form and be tortured to death. Apparently, although we're not told why, this was sufficient to appease the divine blood-lust.

5) Meanwhile, all those millions of victims continued to scream endlessly under horrible torture.

6) Although Jesus' being whipped with cords studded with sharp metal so that his flesh was ripped apart and then nailed to a piece of wood to die slowly over several hours supposedly appeased the divine sadism, most people continued to be condemned to scream forever under horrible tortures, as the only ones who could take advantage of Jesus' being abused in this way were those who believed in this story (which was offered without evidence) and submitted to the authority of the Church. (Although there is some dispute about that last minor point.)

This, we are told, is the creator of the universe, perfectly good, perfectly wise, and all-powerful. We are asked to believe that the sublime all-in-all is worse by far than any mere human despot, who must be content with torturing people for only finite amounts of time.

In fairness, it's not unlikely that someone like Torquemada or Hitler would have had people screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, too, were that humanly possible. So perhaps God is not actually morally worse than the worst examples of human depravity, but merely endowed with power that gives his depravity more dreadful consequences.

Be that as it may, it is reasonable to question whether this conception of God makes any sense -- and by that I mean, on this occasion, not logical or scientific sense, but moral sense.

Whenever I hear the statement, "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son," and I remember the divine blood-lust and cruelty and smarmy pretense that is supposed to accompany this "gift," I want to puke.

And...there is only one way to verify anything in the bible...by reading more of the bible. The Jews wrote it and they don't even believe the new testament. Only a small group of close family and friends ever made mention of Jesus and virgin birth, savior of mankind, holy ghost, walking on water, healing leprosy by touching, raising from the dead, crucifiction, resurrection etc.

Moses was named the author of five books of the old testament and they are written in third person. One has to wonder who that mystery writer was who stood there by the burning bush and watched and heard god and Moses discussing things like the ten commandements.

 

[Dragon]

God doesn't expect us to be perfect. He expects us to try to be better people.

That would make sense, Dave, but it's not what Christian theology tells us. The standard is set so that no one can meet it, "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." But Christians get a pass from that scream-forever-in-torture business because of the sacrifice of Jesus.

The question before any reasonable person, though, is why God would condemn anyone to scream forever in horrible torture, a punishment far out of proportion to any possible human crime. (About the only crime it would be proportional to is sentencing someone else to scream forever in horrible torture, which logically implies that it is God who should himself be sentenced to Hell.)

How can anyone support a God so morally abominable?

 

[Truthmatters]

God is a construct of man.

Its a construct that is about to outlive its nessesity.

It will fizzle and die out like all myths whos purpose is outlived.

It will continue for some time to come yet.

Trying to force people OUT of the need for its comfort prematurely is not going to work.

 

[Truthmatters]

religion does alot of people alot of good.

It doesnt make it true.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I was going to reply to each lie you posted, but there were so many and you're lack of any knowledge...

well, you may want to read some parts of the bible some time, so you don't sound like a complete tool.

 

[Truthmatters]

why waste time with a book so full of myths when there are so many facts in this world to absorb?

 

[Dragon]

I was going to reply to each lie you posted, but there were so many and you're lack of any knowledge...

See, here's how it works, Two Thumbs. If you have an answer to an argument, you present an answer. If you just call an argument a name, without presenting a rebuttal, you implicitly admit that you don't have an answer.

In which case, the better course of action, the one that doesn't make you look like a badly-behaved two-year-old, is to say nothing.

 

[Mad Scientist]

why waste time with a book so full of myths when there are so many facts in this world to absorb?

How do you know it's a myth? Because you've never seen Him?

I've never seen George Washington either, only paintings and stories from people who lived during that time. Should I not believe in him either?

Even if you dug up G.W.'s bones, I could still say those could be anyones' bones.

You don't believe in God but you prolly believe in Alien life forms dontcha'? Ever see an alien?

Explain the difference please!

 

[Dragon]

I consider the logical and scientific objections to Christianity and Biblical inerrancy to be separate issues, having nothing to do with what I'm talking about here, namely the moral depravity of God as he is presented in Christian theology.

In saying that, I'm not saying that the logical and scientific objections to Christianity aren't valid and worthy of discussion, merely that I would prefer they be discussed elsewhere than on this thread. A forlorn request, perhaps, but one I make in all candor.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I was going to reply to each lie you posted, but there were so many and you're lack of any knowledge...

See, here's how it works, Two Thumbs. If you have an answer to an argument, you present an answer. If you just call an argument a name, without presenting a rebuttal, you implicitly admit that you don't have an answer.

In which case, the better course of action, the one that doesn't make you look like a badly-behaved two-year-old, is to say nothing.

My rebuttal was you posted a list of idiotic lies that was far to long to bother with each one.

Then I suggested you attempt to educate yourself.

You should hunt down your last English teacher and demand that he be fired for allowing you to pass the class, since you can't tell what a rebuttal is.

 

[Dragon]

My rebuttal was you posted a list of idiotic lies that was far to long to bother with each one.

That is not a rebuttal. It's a refusal to rebut, which implies that you can't.

If you don't want to take the time to argue against EVERYTHING I said, pick one and argue against that, as Daveman did above.

All you're doing here is demonstrating your own immaturity.

 

[Truthmatters]

why waste time with a book so full of myths when there are so many facts in this world to absorb?

How do you know it's a myth? Because you've never seen Him?

I've never seen George Washington either, only paintings and stories from people who lived during that time. Should I not believe in him either?

Even if you dug up G.W.'s bones, I could still say those could be anyones' bones.

You don't believe in God but you prolly believe in Alien life forms dontcha'? Ever see an alien?

Explain the difference please!

There is no physical proof that god exsists.

There is VAST physical proof Washington exsisted including a vast number of relatives containing his DNA

 

[Cammmpbell]

God is a construct of man.

Its a construct that is about to outlive its nessesity.

It will fizzle and die out like all myths whos purpose is outlived.

It will continue for some time to come yet.

Trying to force people OUT of the need for its comfort prematurely is not going to work.

I like these lines from Dr. Albert Einstein's obituary:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world," he said on another occasion, "is that it is comprehensible."

 

[Dragon]

The only evidence in favor of God is internal and mystical, and unanswerable by any logical or scientific argument. All religion that is not mystical is make-believe.

But that's beside the point here. The point is that Christian theology is make-believe of a particularly vile nature, depicting a God who behaves in ways that would be vehemently condemned in any mere human tyrant. COMPLETELY SEPARATE from any evidence of his existence or lack thereof, IF HE DID EXIST then any person possessed of both a conscience and courage would take the Devil's part.

This abominable tyrant is ASKING for rebellion. Rebellion against God is a moral imperative.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I mean the God of traditional Christian theology, of course. Consider:

1) He made human beings fallible, then expected them to be perfect.

2) Because they sought the knowledge of good and evil -- that is, tried to develop a conscience -- he condemned not only those who did this, but all of their descendants, to be tortured forever and ever.

3) For thousands of years, everyone (with perhaps a very few exceptions -- theory isn't clear on this) were sentenced to be tortured forever and ever, since he had designed everyone to be perfect but judged them according to an unachievable standard.

4) After thousands of years and millions of victims, who were screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, doubtless to his pleasure and satisfaction, he sent his son to assume human form and be tortured to death. Apparently, although we're not told why, this was sufficient to appease the divine blood-lust.

5) Meanwhile, all those millions of victims continued to scream endlessly under horrible torture.

6) Although Jesus' being whipped with cords studded with sharp metal so that his flesh was ripped apart and then nailed to a piece of wood to die slowly over several hours supposedly appeased the divine sadism, most people continued to be condemned to scream forever under horrible tortures, as the only ones who could take advantage of Jesus' being abused in this way were those who believed in this story (which was offered without evidence) and submitted to the authority of the Church. (Although there is some dispute about that last minor point.)

This, we are told, is the creator of the universe, perfectly good, perfectly wise, and all-powerful. We are asked to believe that the sublime all-in-all is worse by far than any mere human despot, who must be content with torturing people for only finite amounts of time.

In fairness, it's not unlikely that someone like Torquemada or Hitler would have had people screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, too, were that humanly possible. So perhaps God is not actually morally worse than the worst examples of human depravity, but merely endowed with power that gives his depravity more dreadful consequences.

Be that as it may, it is reasonable to question whether this conception of God makes any sense -- and by that I mean, on this occasion, not logical or scientific sense, but moral sense.

Whenever I hear the statement, "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son," and I remember the divine blood-lust and cruelty and smarmy pretense that is supposed to accompany this "gift," I want to puke.

Then shut up and puke already. You are so full of it you defecate out your mouth constantly.

Why does this poster's view make you so angry? Do you think God cares if he's insulted?

Do you think God loves YOU more and Dragon less?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The only evidence in favor of God is internal and mystical, and unanswerable by any logical or scientific argument. All religion that is not mystical is make-believe.

But that's beside the point here. The point is that Christian theology is make-believe of a particularly vile nature, depicting a God who behaves in ways that would be vehemently condemned in any mere human tyrant. COMPLETELY SEPARATE from any evidence of his existence or lack thereof, IF HE DID EXIST then any person possessed of both a conscience and courage would take the Devil's part.

This abominable tyrant is ASKING for rebellion. Rebellion against God is a moral imperative.

Hmm, I'm interested in the part of your post about the mystical truth of religion. Have you more to say about that?

The God of the Bible is nobody's business but the people who follow the Bible, IMO. There is no point in counter arguing with people who find the Bible their holy book. JMO.