To Christians: How did you come to terms with God's apparent immorality? / Revisited

[Hipparchia]

any one with a smidgeon of a brain it is pretty clear that you are consumed with hate about anyone foolish enough to have anything positive to say about religion.

There's something positive to say about Christianity?

(Q), I haven't explicitly said what I think about Christianity. By declaring myself to be an atheist I have have implied that I don't have much of a regard for its belief system. But you quite miss the point. I am not discussing whether your statements about Christianity are accurate or not, I am observing that they arise out of your hatred for religion in general and Christianity in particular.

I have also stated very clearly that I am not saying this hatred is wrong (or right), but simply that it is there. Do you deny this?

 

[(Q)]

I am not discussing whether your statements about Christianity are accurate or not, I am observing that they arise out of your hatred for religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Your assertion may be somewhat misplaced. I have no hatred of things or ideologies. It's clear that religions like Christianity or Islam or any other monotheism are a serious detriment to mankind and our survival. They have done great harm to humanity for centuries and they continue to do so. It's time they were eliminated so that humanity can come together as one and do things for humanity rather than invisible gods.

Religions hate, they hate humans, they hate other religions and their followers, they hate homosexuals, they hate the earth and everything on it. It is the religions that propagate hatred, sir. And, whenever we want to do anything about it, we are the ones labeled as "haters" of their gods. Ridiculous, isn't it?

 

[(Q)]

My problem isn't in whether God is moral or immoral - but in how a person can have a clear picture of God and accept Him for whatever He is, along with accepting themselves and their position.

If your god is immoral and you accept him, then you are immoral as well since your god teaches you everything you need to know.

I am too stupid and too evil.

You would only be stupid and evil after accepting an immoral god.

 

[Hipparchia]

It is the religions that propagate hatred, sir.

That's miss.

And, whenever we want to do anything about it, we are the ones labeled as "haters" of their gods. Ridiculous, isn't it?

I have read many of your posts. Your single minded attacks on religion and on followers of religion, the tone of those posts, the derisive, petulant responses, all speak of hatred.

You may be unaware of that, but to an objective outsider your posts don't suggest hatred, they scream hatred at full volume. I have no axe to grind here. I think fundamentalist followers of religion are rather foolish. As I have pointed out I am not a theist. Either you hate, or you wholly lack skills in conveying your meaning in an accurate manner in print.

 

[(Q)]

I have read many of your posts. Your single minded attacks on religion and on followers of religion, the tone of those posts, the derisive, petulant responses, all speak of hatred.

So, religions are free to spread hatred because it is part of their belief system, and when others criticize, they are branded for spreading hatred of religions.

Is there any reason for an atheist to exist if religions never existed? Should we just forget about the last two thousand years of religious oppression and atrocities against mankind and the continued destruction it causes to humanity? Religions may have been around for a long time and we are surely lulled to sleep by their presence, but that doesn't mean they are any less dangerous.

Either you hate, or you wholly lack skills in conveying your meaning in an accurate manner in print.

I am so sorry that my meaning did not convey to you in the manner of which you're accustomed. I'm sure there's probably a 1800 number you could dial, miss.

 

[Hipparchia]

So, religions are free to spread hatred because it is part of their belief system, and when others criticize, they are branded for spreading hatred of religions.

For someone who seems to wish to take the role of a knowledgeable, astute individual you routinely employ illogical tactics. We are not discussing the hatred exhibited, or promoted by religions, by religious people, or by any group of persons. We are discussing the hatred that is evident in nearly every post you make. I suspect that this hatred is evident to most persons who read your posts. The only person it is apparently not evident to is yourself.

I do note that you don't actually deny the hatred - instead you just keep trying to change the subject. That is a classic symptom of self delusion. If I am mistaken, and you accept that you do indeed hate as I suggest, then please say so and we can move on.

 

[(Q)]

For someone who seems to wish to take the role of a knowledgeable, astute individual you routinely employ illogical tactics.

I'm not sure where I said I would assume that role, could you please point it out?

We are not discussing the hatred exhibited, or promoted by religions, by religious people, or by any group of persons. We are discussing the hatred that is evident in nearly every post you make. I suspect that this hatred is evident to most persons who read your posts. The only person it is apparently not evident to is yourself.

Do you speak for everyone or just yourself?

I do note that you don't actually deny the hatred - instead you just keep trying to change the subject. That is a classic symptom of self delusion. If I am mistaken, and you accept that you do indeed hate as I suggest, then please say so and we can move on.

Ok, you are mistaken and I don't hate anyone. Happy now? Are you through attacking me personally or is there more to your vitriol? Is there something you hate about me?

Tell us what you really think.

 

[Hipparchia]

I'm not sure where I said I would assume that role, could you please point it out?

(Q), really, you are being deliberately obtuse. I clearly said that you seem to have adopted a role. In every post of yours I recall that intent seems obvious. If that is not your intent then you really need to change your writing style.

Do you speak for everyone or just yourself?

I know I reflect views expressed by several others in regard to your posts. I do not speak with their authorisation, but I am confident I am not alone in my interpretation of your posts.

Ok, you are mistaken and I don't hate anyone. Happy now?

Then you really need to take a step back and look at how you react to those with whom you disagree. I was taught that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, that you can probably assert it is a duck.

 

[joepistole]

The traditional solution is to split God in two, a good God and a bad or evil God.

 

[(Q)]

(Q), really, you are being deliberately obtuse. I clearly said that you seem to have adopted a role. In every post of yours I recall that intent seems obvious. If that is not your intent then you really need to change your writing style.

Why not just change your reading style, instead?

I know I reflect views expressed by several others in regard to your posts. I do not speak with their authorisation, but I am confident I am not alone in my interpretation of your posts.

I'm glad you continue to make assertions if that helps you in some way.

Then you really need to take a step back and look at how you react to those with whom you disagree. I was taught that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, that you can probably assert it is a duck.

Are there going to be more posts like this where you personally attack me? If it were me, I would have been banned by now.

Funny how you're doing exactly what you're complaining about.

 

[Hipparchia]

Why not just change your reading style, instead?

The primary onus for effective communication in writing lies with the writer. In your posts addressed to those with religious beliefs you repeatedly come across as snide, patronising, belligerent, dismissive, arrogant and angry. Such a combination of attitudes and emotions is commonly associated with hate. You say you don't hate those whom these remarks are directed to. I accept that. It is regretable you cannot accept how your remarks are read by others, since it is clear that you are being misinterpreted.
However, if you wish to be thought of as snide, patronising, belligerent, dismissive, arrogant and angry, then that is your choice. I shall have nothing more to say about it.

I'm glad you continue to make assertions if that helps you in some way.

This comment seems irrelevant: assertions are the currency of a discussion forum.

Are there going to be more posts like this where you personally attack me?

In what way is using the 'walks like a duck' analogy a personal attack?

For the record, I am not attacking you. I am commenting on, as I have been doing from the outset, the single point that your writing gives the appearance of hatred of those with religious beliefs. For whatever reason you appear not to wish to accept that this is how you come across to a number of people. It's no skin of my nose if you wish to avoid the blindingly obvious and further discussion with you is likley pointless.

At this point, if I wished to launch a personal attack I could accuse you of cognitive dissonance. I doubt that is the case however. More likely you simply want to argue for the sake of arguing. Once again, if this is your intent further discussion is pointless.

Funny how you're doing exactly what you're complaining about.

I don't believe I am expressing hatred of any one. Could you point to the passages in my posts that reveal hatred? If there are any that could be misinterpreted that way I would wish to adjust future posts accordingly.

 

[(Q)]

For the record, I am not attacking you.

For the record, yes you are attacking me personally. Have you got nothing else better to do?

I don't believe I am expressing hatred of any one.

Yet, you are ready to tell me that I am expressing hatred, funny that.

 

[Big Chiller]

Why? If God told you to torture a child, would you do it? I have never found the Abraham story - where the issue was murder rather than torture - convincing. I would hope that God wanted him to disobey. I can see no reason not to question God's morality, just as I would anyone in a position of authority who seems to be doing something immoral.

In a sense this is respect.

If a boss found out that much of what he or she was doing was seen as inethical by his or her employees, a mature one would be disappointed in the employees for not calling him on this stuff.

This is a mistake here God is being put in the same category as His creation you have to realize that God isn't held accountable by anyone so He can't be attributed with morality. A boss can be held accountable by authorities and God.

 

[GeoffP]

As a theist and a scientist, I split my personality along NOMA. I don't worry about the contrast too much, since if we're talking divine omnipotent beings, nothing much I could do could detect them.

As for evil in the world, there's the old rub: evil in the world could as easily be blamed on people. Not entirely satisfying, but it can't be dismissed either.

 

[(Q)]

As a theist and a scientist, I split my personality along NOMA. I don't worry about the contrast too much, since if we're talking divine omnipotent beings, nothing much I could do could detect them.

There are many, many claims about how gods interact with our world in one way or another. Surely, there must be ample opportunity to put gods to the test.

As for evil in the world, there's the old rub: evil in the world could as easily be blamed on people. Not entirely satisfying, but it can't be dismissed either.

It could easily be dismissed by simply lifting the suspension of disbelief.

 

[GeoffP]

There are many, many claims about how gods interact with our world in one way or another. Surely, there must be ample opportunity to put gods to the test.

I disagree: faith is faith, reason is reason. How are you going to catch an omniscient, omnipotent being out?

It could easily be dismissed by simply lifting the suspension of disbelief.

In people's evil?

 

[Doreen]

My problem isn't in whether God is moral or immoral - but in how a person can have a clear picture of God and accept Him for whatever He is, along with accepting themselves and their position.

How did they come to terms with diametrically opposed scriptural statements about God. How do they reconcile on the one hand, God being loving, and on the other, damning the majority of His beloved children to eternal damnation because they didn't become convinced by just someone who claimed to know the truth about God or who didn't give in to their fears and panic.

Because the mainstream Christian reasoning seems to be based on an idea like "I am small, worthless, insignificant, therefore, I have to believe everything anyone (including my fears and panic) says about God." "God can do whatever He wants to, I accept it, I cannot understand it, I am too stupid and too evil."

I think there are some Christians like this. I think others think they are big, even while claiming they are small, because they have the in with the big mafia boss. They know who to suck up to and possibly you don't. I also think there is a mundane glob of Christians who, like most people, try not to notice disturbing contradictions because they cause anxiety. I am not sure that seething underneath their facades we would find unconscious tempests around who God is.

I think people tend to avoid dealing with contradictions. I am not sure where the balance point is, but I do often wish more people were bothered by contradictions.

This way, an enormous faith is required in anyone who claims to know about God, as well as enormous faith in one's own fears and panic. (Acting on such faith only makes the fears worse, though.)

To claim you know God (period) seems like hubris to me. I wouldn't want to claim I fully know the people I am closest to even. To have some sense, and a sense of direction, seems more honest. It seems like heading this way feels right and brings me closer and this model seems to aid me in this process, etc.

This is what fideism is, and I am finding difficult to argue against it.

Doesn't fidism say that faith and reason do not meet and that faith is better? I mean that pretty much rules out arguing against it. You cannot reason against something that denies reason precedence. You cannot undermine it, at least not in the ways of reasoning I can think of. I also think there must be at least a smattering of truth in fidism. Not necessarily in relation to God, but to life. We cannot reason our way to everything. We don't have time and we would have to start over each morning - I mean, why trust our memories of yesterday? Because we have a memory that trusting yesterday's worldview worked in the past? Well, that's kinda circular. So we kind have to go on faith and pick our skepticisms with care. Also I think there is a problem with needing to reach all conclusions rationally and logically, apart from the time/endlessness issue: I think this injunction presumes stasis. But we are not static. we are in motion. So we are not outside, looking, deciding whether to act on faith or not. But rather repeatedluy stopping our own momentum. It is not clear to me that allowing oneself to continue to live bears the burden of proof.

 

[wynn]

Doesn't fidism say that faith and reason do not meet and that faith is better?

There are actually many kinds of fideism.
I am referring to the most lowly one, I'll say more about it below.

I mean that pretty much rules out arguing against it. You cannot reason against something that denies reason precedence. You cannot undermine it, at least not in the ways of reasoning I can think of.

Well, you can always excuse yourself from the conversation with a fideist - leave the room, delete the email or hang up the phone.

Something else is how to deal with one's "inner fideist" - that voice that says that acting on your worst fears makes for the best course of action.

I also think there must be at least a smattering of truth in fidism. Not necessarily in relation to God, but to life. We cannot reason our way to everything. We don't have time and we would have to start over each morning - I mean, why trust our memories of yesterday? Because we have a memory that trusting yesterday's worldview worked in the past? Well, that's kinda circular. So we kind have to go on faith and pick our skepticisms with care. Also I think there is a problem with needing to reach all conclusions rationally and logically, apart from the time/endlessness issue: I think this injunction presumes stasis. But we are not static. we are in motion. So we are not outside, looking, deciding whether to act on faith or not. But rather repeatedluy stopping our own momentum. It is not clear to me that allowing oneself to continue to live bears the burden of proof.

Sure, sure. Some relying on faith is inavoidable, and I also don't see anything bad about that.

The aspect of fideism that I am getting at rears its ugliest head when it comes to being faced with a decision between different religious traditions.

If there are only two options: one brand of theism (even if it is fire and brimstone and that is something one doesn't exactly like) and atheism, then it is more reasonable to choose that particular theism over atheism. In such a case, I think that a fideistic choice is not troubling, one just accepts the good with the bad, because the other option is demoralizing altogether.

But when there are different brands or theism available to choose from, how does one proceed? In such a case, a fideistic choice (based on something like "The one which I understand the least / like the least has the best chances of being the right one") may not be satisfactory.

 

[Hipparchia]

For the record, yes you are attacking me personally. Have you got nothing else better to do?:

Do you think that pointing out an apparent weakness in someone, that they may be unaware of, is a personal attack? Would you say that such action always constitutes a personal attack? If you are going to accuse me of attacking you will you at least point to a specific example.

Yet, you are ready to tell me that I am expressing hatred, funny that.

I point out that your writing gives the clear appearance that you hate a certain category of person.
In what way is my action of pointing this out an expression of hatred on my part?

 

[(Q)]

I disagree: faith is faith, reason is reason. How are you going to catch an omniscient, omnipotent being out?

Are you serious? With all the praying going on and all the miracles occurring all over the planet, it should be a cinch. I mean, we don't where lightning will strike, either.

In people's evil?

That too.