God is a Monstrous, Evil, Bloodthirsty Tyrant

[Sky Dancer]

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.

Why argue about the moral depravity of God to a Christian? Better to have this disussion among atheists and let the Christians sit back and watch.

 

[BluePhantom]

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.

Jesus Dragon, you really have a hard on for Christianity don't you? Did you have a bad experience with a priest as a child or something? Jeez.

Well, seriously, I will say that those things have crossed my mind many times and I have drawn similar conclusions. That has led me to reject the traditional view of Christianity in favor of a version that fits with (for lack of a better way of explaining it) "what God and I can agree upon". As such I do see a contradiction in the way traditional Christianity portrays God's nature and the way they portray His actions.

But it seems that's where you and I split apart. I get the impression that you look at such contradictions and conclude "therefore there is no God", where I look at them and say "well there's a God but He aint what the church portrays Him to be." At that point I must choose between a loving and patient God or, what you might term, a ruthless sadist. I choose the former and as such I reject the concept of hell, I reject the concept of sin (I really don't think God is upset by anything we do), I reject "final judgement", etc. But again as I have stated previously: I am FAR from traditional in my views.

However, for those who hold those views they often have a great sense of peace, a feeling of hope, and it frequently has a tremendously positive effect on their lives. So I wonder why you are so motivated to fuck with that. You know?

As for someone with the characteristics you describe in your OP, there IS a guy like that. His name is Rick. He was my boss for 10 years.

 

[Dragon]

Why argue about the moral depravity of God to a Christian? Better to have this disussion among atheists and let the Christians sit back and watch.

That's no fun. I like to present the stark reality of what their doctrine actually teaches and watch them splutter.

Evil of me, I know.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

My inference has always been that as the ‘creator’ of the ‘moral laws’ the Christian god is above such laws and may violate them with impunity.

But we all know there is no god, Christian or otherwise; it’s a creation of man, as is religion. The proof of this is Christian dogma itself, as it perfectly reflects the depravity and cruelty of humankind.

 

[daveman]

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?

More fallacy to be discarded.

The arrogance is amazing. You really think you can talk people out of their faith.

All you do is demonstrate you have no understanding at all.

 

[daveman]

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.

So how's that working out for you? Got any converts?

No?

Well, then.

 

[daveman]

But we all know there is no god, Christian or otherwise...

You really shouldn't claim to speak for all of humanity. You got it wrong.

 

[dblack]

But we all know there is no god, Christian or otherwise; it’s a creation of man, as is religion.

If it's a creation of man, it's real.

 

[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.

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?

He's afraid....AFRAID...of this:

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven"

and

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No man can go to the father except through me"


The Christian religion is based upon the primordial fear instilled in mankind.

 

[BluePhantom]

The Christian religion is based upon the primordial fear instilled in mankind.

Well what's the difference between that and AGW or even second hand smoke? There's never been a single study that shows second hand smoke causes any form of disease that met the standard 95% confidence interval. Even the EPA admits that. Hell the World Health Organization's study in the 90's actually showed second hand smoke had a beneficial effect for children (1). But society has been hit with so much propaganda that it does that it's accepted because the EPA is trying to scare the living shit out of people so they won't smoke.

I mean, I agree that organized religions exist on trying to terrify society into behaving as they want them to behave, but any other organization does the exact same thing. it's kind of hard to fault religion on that one unless you are willing to fault everyone else who does it.


1) http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.full.pdf

"A total of 389 case subjects and 1021 control subjects reported ever having been exposed to ETS during childhood, for
an overall odds ratio (OR) of 0.78..." Keep in mind that an OR or RR that is less than 1.00 means it's a health benefit. Their own study, man.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Your intelligence is a construct of your imagination. God is real, we will all find out one day.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Look in the mirror, you will see the biggest myth of them all, you.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

The badly behaved two year old is cammmpbell.

 

[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.

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?

God loves all mankind. He will punish those that refuse his gift of salvation thru Jesus Christ. I just get angry when someone blatantly curses and refutes GOD. But in the end it will be the unbelievers that will see the truth and howl in pain. I would love to see everyone in heaven even you and Dragon, but I know God gave man free will. I just keep on praying for everyone. Peace.

 

[dblack]

God loves all mankind. He will punish those that refuse his gift of salvation thru Jesus Christ. I just get angry when someone blatantly curses and refutes GOD. ...

How come? Why does it make you angry?

 

[editec]

I'd say its not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the OT GOD is something of a dick for the reasons you've outlined.

That being said, why do you care?

 

[Cammmpbell]

The Christian religion is based upon the primordial fear instilled in mankind.

Well what's the difference between that and AGW or even second hand smoke? There's never been a single study that shows second hand smoke causes any form of disease that met the standard 95% confidence interval. Even the EPA admits that. Hell the World Health Organization's study in the 90's actually showed second hand smoke had a beneficial effect for children (1). But society has been hit with so much propaganda that it does that it's accepted because the EPA is trying to scare the living shit out of people so they won't smoke.

I mean, I agree that organized religions exist on trying to terrify society into behaving as they want them to behave, but any other organization does the exact same thing. it's kind of hard to fault religion on that one unless you are willing to fault everyone else who does it.


1) http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.full.pdf

"A total of 389 case subjects and 1021 control subjects reported ever having been exposed to ETS during childhood, for
an overall odds ratio (OR) of 0.78..." Keep in mind that an OR or RR that is less than 1.00 means it's a health benefit. Their own study, man.

Is it coincidence that the government, the church and banks are the richest entities on earth. Is it fair that not only do churches operate in the clear but they also operate tax free. I wouldn't give any of them enough warm piss to take a pill.

 

[BluePhantom]

Is it coincidence that the government, the church and banks are the richest entities on earth. Is it fair that not only do churches operate in the clear but they also operate tax free. I wouldn't give any of them enough warm piss to take a pill.

I would tend to agree, but that's organized religion (and organized central government). There's a big difference between "religion" and "spirituality". I am generally of the opinion that few things have benefited society as much as a good strong spirituality among the members of society. I am also strongly of the opinion that few things have as completely fucked up society as much as an organized church (or government for that matter).

So again, I agree with certain aspects of your arguments and that of others, but to go from observing the contradictions and hypocrisies of "the church" to complete rejection of spirituality seems to be a heck of a leap. Just my opinion.

 

[daveman]

I'd say its not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the OT GOD is something of a dick for the reasons you've outlined.

That being said, why do you care?

Some people are incredibly intolerant of those who believe differently than they do.

 

[Dragon]

But it seems that's where you and I split apart. I get the impression that you look at such contradictions and conclude "therefore there is no God", where I look at them and say "well there's a God but He aint what the church portrays Him to be." At that point I must choose between a loving and patient God or, what you might term, a ruthless sadist. I choose the former and as such I reject the concept of hell, I reject the concept of sin (I really don't think God is upset by anything we do), I reject "final judgement", etc. But again as I have stated previously: I am FAR from traditional in my views.

Actually, your views are very much like mine. I'm sorry if what I said gave that impression. I am not, in fact, an atheist. But I am an implacable opponent of doctrinaire, dogmatic, authoritarian religion, for much the same reason as Jefferson penned to a collateral ancestor of mine: "For I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." And also, I reject utterly all that places a barrier between the soul and awareness of the divine, and doctrinaire religion does a better job of that than anything else I can think of.

As for someone with the characteristics you describe in your OP, there IS a guy like that. His name is Rick. He was my boss for 10 years.

Yikes. Well, fortunately he lacked the divine power to make you scream eternally in horrible torture.