The Case for Christianity

[Michael S. Pearl]

Except that I had a choice of many, many, many orders from God to exterminate all the people and livestock of various cities (kill 'em, unless you fancy their nubile young women.) Plus God doing the slaughtering himself (again, a choice of many episodes.) BTW, how many verses would a believer trim away from the Bible, as being contrary to love and mercy, before the book as a whole is plainly seen as unsuitable for modern minds?

Yes. You have a choice. What is your inclination? That is the point of Luke 17: 20-21 when the Pharisees allegedly ask Jesus "when the kingdom of God was coming, and Jesus answered them, 'The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.'”

As regards the - let's just call them what they are - repugnant verses, they are absolutely suitable for modern minds. Those verses depict characteristics common to humans individually and collectively throughout the ages (including such ideas that an individual acts as required by God, or the law, or by the culture, or by the clan rather than in accord with the individual's own sense of responsibility/response-ability, such as in terms of for the sake of the being of an other). Many of those verses are examples of what we would now dub realpolitik. Realpolitik is more often than not repugnant; it veritably never concerns itself with attaining solutions that have the sake of the opponent, the other, as a consideration. Of course, there is no getting away from it, and it is beyond our control; it frankly is the very sort of thing that is meant by the notion of the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children.

The reason why taking God's name in vain is prohibited - the reason why taking God's name in vain is a sin - is because when someone claims, for example, that God commands that some people be exterminated, the purpose of that claim is to effectively cut off any discussion, especially in terms concerned with the sake of the other: “Did not [God] who made me in the womb make them? Did not [God] form us both within our mothers?” (Job 31:15) God does not make people be concerned for others. Being concerned for others - and how to effect being for others - is entirely a product of, and a project of, human individuals. At least in the case of those who are so inclined.

 

[pood]

Except that I had a choice of many, many, many orders from God to exterminate all the people and livestock of various cities (kill 'em, unless you fancy their nubile young women.) Plus God doing the slaughtering himself (again, a choice of many episodes.) BTW, how many verses would a believer trim away from the Bible, as being contrary to love and mercy, before the book as a whole is plainly seen as unsuitable for modern minds?

Yes. You have a choice. What is your inclination? That is the point of Luke 17: 20-21 when the Pharisees allegedly ask Jesus "when the kingdom of God was coming, and Jesus answered them, 'The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.'”

As regards the - let's just call them what they are - repugnant verses, they are absolutely suitable for modern minds. Those verses depict characteristics common to humans individually and collectively throughout the ages (including such ideas that an individual acts as required by God, or the law, or by the culture, or by the clan rather than in accord with the individual's own sense of responsibility/response-ability, such as in terms of for the sake of the being of an other). Many of those verses are examples of what we would now dub realpolitik. Realpolitik is more often than not repugnant; it veritably never concerns itself with attaining solutions that have the sake of the opponent, the other, as a consideration. Of course, there is no getting away from it, and it is beyond our control; it frankly is the very sort of thing that is meant by the notion of the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children.

The reason why taking God's name in vain is prohibited - the reason why taking God's name in vain is a sin - is because when someone claims, for example, that God commands that some people be exterminated, the purpose of that claim is to effectively cut off any discussion, especially in terms concerned with the sake of the other: “Did not [God] who made me in the womb make them? Did not [God] form us both within our mothers?” (Job 31:15) God does not make people be concerned for others. Being concerned for others - and how to effect being for others - is entirely a product of, and a project of, human individuals. At least in the case of those who are so inclined.

I think this is all correct. and as mentioned, I think the bible, a human product, is the human journey writ large in all its highs and lows, and this is true even IF there is a literal god.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I think the bible, a human product, is the human journey writ large in all its highs and lows, and this is true even IF there is a literal god.

Precisely.

 

[Brunswick1954]

The Problem of Suffering​

Thank you all for the daily posts. There are many interesting points raised and internal conversations amongst yourselves. Perhaps I can continue by dealing with one of the more persistent problems: suffering. Why would a just and loving God allow suffering?

At some level, the question, as it is often phrased, is rhetorical. A just and moral God would not allow suffering. There is suffering in this world. Therefore, either God is neither just nor moral, or there is no God. Phrased that way, there is no possible answer. It’s circular.

However, life, even science, is full of paradoxes. Light, for example, is both particle and waveform. It is a particle but has no mass. It is a waveform but behaves like a particle. At the subatomic level, there are entangled particles - anything that happens to one instantly affects its twin across distances. Schrödinger’s cat is both alive and dead until observed, due to quantum superposition. The list goes on.

One of the most astonishing accounts of suffering in the Bible is the story of Job. Here, God allows Job to suffer atrociously as part of a wager (yes, even God gambles) posed by Satan. Job calls God to account, and God appears and challenges him. How can Job, a human, question God, the Almighty? Job immediately submits and prostrates himself before God.

There are many ways to interpret this story, but I want to focus on those themes that speak to our problem.

Some suggest, from the story, that God is good and only Satan is bad. But that does not absolve God. God clearly gave Satan permission to inflict his worst upon Job. Furthermore, in other parts of the Bible, God inflicts his wrath through mass destruction and other acts that appear “evil.” He brings ten plagues upon the Egyptians, yet asks us to forgive our enemies. What gives?

In a universe as dynamic, wonderful, and mysterious as the one we live in, variation requires binary opposites—mass/space, up/down, hot/cold. For us to feel anything at all, there must be binaries—happy/sad, anger/fear, love/hate. Many philosophies, including Buddhism, place suffering at the centre of human experience. Buddhism distinguishes between pain and suffering, and teaches that suffering is a consequence of human desire. The solution, in Buddhism, is detachment.

In many instances in our lives, we accept suffering as part of growth. Champions train and push their bodies to the limit. Academics and scientists work long hours to solve intractable problems. Parents send children to school and discipline them for their own good. Even needless suffering in others has inspired some of us to dedicate our lives to helping them. Suffering can lead to good.

The story of Adam and Eve is also relevant to this question. They ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and were banished from the Garden of Eden. I often read this as a metaphor for human civilisation. Our indigenous peoples have lived for millennia and can continue to do so indefinitely, provided they remain in harmony with nature. Human civilisation may have brought many good things, but we are now at the brink of self-destruction.

I don’t mean to oversimplify a difficult argument. But God offers Himself to guide us, to protect us from evil, and to comfort us in our suffering. Jesus suffered the worst atrocities of his time, but this suffering was necessary to God’s plan. We are asked to carry our cross, not abandon it. And yet, our burden is lightest because we walk with God, not alone.

 

[DBT]

The bible tells us that God Himself is responsible for evil and suffering in the world, that God Himself creates the deaf, blind and crippled, including the wicked for the 'day of evil.'

 

[Brunswick1954]

The bible tells us that God Himself is responsible for evil and suffering in the world, that God Himself creates the deaf, blind and crippled, including the wicked for the 'day of evil.'

I agree. God is culpable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Problem of Suffering​

Thank you all for the daily posts. There are many interesting points raised and internal conversations amongst yourselves. Perhaps I can continue by dealing with one of the more persistent problems: suffering. Why would a just and loving God allow suffering?

At some level, the question, as it is often phrased, is rhetorical. A just and moral God would not allow suffering. There is suffering in this world. Therefore, either God is neither just nor moral, or there is no God. Phrased that way, there is no possible answer. It’s circular.

The just and moral god is a Christian thing... not an atheist counter-argument. The New Testament has God, temporarily, go babyface and become a good guy. Otherwise, Yahweh was a heel in most of the Tanakh and the New Testament.

Some Christians argue that God is omnibenevolent. Therefore, this raises questions regarding suffering. Genesis 50 addresses the suffering issue. But the omnibenevolence would seem to extend well beyond Genesis 50 and kind of be baseless. Omnibenevolence to some Christians is an obvious characteristic of a god. There really is no basis for that however. But they set up the pins, so it isn't fair to complain when someone knocks them down.

However, life, even science, is full of paradoxes. Light, for example, is both particle and waveform. It is a particle but has no mass. It is a waveform but behaves like a particle. At the subatomic level, there are entangled particles - anything that happens to one instantly affects its twin across distances. Schrödinger’s cat is both alive and dead until observed, due to quantum superposition. The list goes on.

Does it though? Also, those aren't paradoxes, they are incomplete understandings of fundamental aspects of nature. A photon has a fundamental nature that we don't completely grasp yet.

One of the most astonishing accounts of suffering in the Bible is the story of Job. Here, God allows Job to suffer atrociously as part of a wager (yes, even God gambles) posed by Satan. Job calls God to account, and God appears and challenges him. How can Job, a human, question God, the Almighty? Job immediately submits and prostrates himself before God.

Job might be the most personal example of suffering, but God smited the globe in The Flood, he torched two small civilizations.... oh and the Babylonian Captivity thing! And then the orders to exterminate other civilizations in the Torah also come to mind. Sure, that isn't Israelite suffering, but murder is murder, right, even when religiously based.

In a universe as dynamic, wonderful, and mysterious as the one we live in, variation requires binary opposites—mass/space, up/down, hot/cold.

A false dichotomy about a false dichotomy? Our brains work on that model so we can interpret our environments and survive. Nature has opposites when it comes to magnetism, but overall, A or B.... that isn't a thing.

 

[Learner]

If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping.

Said in a likewise manner...

..."the whooping" always comes after the warning.

So what. The critical aspect was Yahweh's forgiveness.

I mention the warnings that were given before the "whooping" because I see a false illustration automatically being pictured here - when you posted the statement below...

"If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping."

...the statement would mistakenly imply:

God just gives out "whoopings" willy nilly without reason when omitting the bit about 'being warned' and the consequences that would follow - which illustrates a rather different 'perspective' of God to the one your statement seems to allude to.

 

[pood]

If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping.

Said in a likewise manner...

..."the whooping" always comes after the warning.

So what. The critical aspect was Yahweh's forgiveness.

I mention the warnings that were given before the "whooping" because I see a false illustration automatically being pictured here - when you posted the statement below...

"If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping."

...the statement would mistakenly imply:

God just gives out "whoopings" willy nilly without reason when omitting the bit about 'being warned' and the consequences that would follow - which illustrates a rather different 'perspective' of God to the one your statement seems to allude to.

But Goddy, being omniscient, would have known that the warning wouldn’t be heeded, so … no need to warn at all.

Were you planning to return to the children and brain cancer discussion?

 

[steve_bank]

If you go by biblical creationism we humans are characters an animation erected to amuse the creator.

We are pets codtijnedn to obey throug fear of the woned.

As to the cause of suffering I like the Buddhist narrative.

The anecdotal story is Buddha being born to precede and raised isolated from the outside word. An easy life. He get6s a glimpse of suffering outside the palace and asks himself what is the cause of suffering.

He gives it all up and goes walk about on a journey of discovery to find the answer to suffering.

He goes from easy palace life to extreme Brahman asceticism, extreme self denial. Today wndering Sadhus still exist in India. He decides that is not the answer. In the end he concludes that to live is to suffer, it is an inescapable fact. And that a lot of suffering is self made. We suffer from the meaningless things we attach value to.

Extreme asceticism seeks to desensitize. Literally sit on a pile of dung until it no longer bothers you. No physical possessions.

Buddha finds the best way to live is self moderation. Avoid extremes of both self denial and self indulgence. would say self moderation used to be a Protestant Christian value.

Our modern consumptive couture is extreme self indulgence on a massive scale, with all the associated ills. If you don't get instant gratification you get upset.

The old Protestant work ethic was about delayed gratification.



.

 

[Politesse]

If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping.

Said in a likewise manner...

..."the whooping" always comes after the warning.

So what. The critical aspect was Yahweh's forgiveness.

I mention the warnings that were given before the "whooping" because I see a false illustration automatically being pictured here - when you posted the statement below...

"If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping."

...the statement would mistakenly imply:

God just gives out "whoopings" willy nilly without reason when omitting the bit about 'being warned' and the consequences that would follow - which illustrates a rather different 'perspective' of God to the one your statement seems to allude to.

But Goddy, being omniscient, would have known that the warning wouldn’t be heeded, so … no need to warn at all. ?

I believe it's pronounced, "Godot".

 

[Learner]

If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping.

Said in a likewise manner...

..."the whooping" always comes after the warning.

So what. The critical aspect was Yahweh's forgiveness.

I mention the warnings that were given before the "whooping" because I see a false illustration automatically being pictured here - when you posted the statement below...

"If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping."

...the statement would mistakenly imply:

God just gives out "whoopings" willy nilly without reason when omitting the bit about 'being warned' and the consequences that would follow - which illustrates a rather different 'perspective' of God to the one your statement seems to allude to.

But Goddy, being omniscient, would have known that the warning wouldn’t be heeded, so … no need to warn at all.

He knew they would be heeded? I see, and if he didn't warn them, what would there be to heed? I would wonder by the logic above.

Were you planning to return to the children and brain cancer discussion?

Sure. all you need do is remind me.

 

[pood]

If we had some good reason to think that some kind of God existed, the problem of suffering and evil would be more pressing. The usual mental gymnastics end up in some form of “God works in mysterious ways,” and there is a hidden reason for human suffering. This is what Lincoln had in mind in his second inaugural address, when he invoked biblical passages (though not a Christian) to claim that the war went on and on, with no victory for either side, because this was god’s payback for the sin of slavery, and that he might let the war continue until every drop of blood drawn with the lash was repaid with blood drawn from the sword. But the idea here is that in the end, the eradication of slavery justified the enormous toll of death and suffering, because slavery had continued “past God’s appointed time.”

But the much more parsimonious explanation for the existence of suffering and evil is that God does not exist or if he does,. he has little or nothing in common with what we attribute to him. On a naturalistic account of the world, suffering and evil is fully to be expected.

 

[pood]

If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping.

Said in a likewise manner...

..."the whooping" always comes after the warning.

So what. The critical aspect was Yahweh's forgiveness.

I mention the warnings that were given before the "whooping" because I see a false illustration automatically being pictured here - when you posted the statement below...

"If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping."

...the statement would mistakenly imply:

God just gives out "whoopings" willy nilly without reason when omitting the bit about 'being warned' and the consequences that would follow - which illustrates a rather different 'perspective' of God to the one your statement seems to allude to.

But Goddy, being omniscient, would have known that the warning wouldn’t be heeded, so … no need to warn at all.

He knew they would be heeded?

He knew that would NOT be heeded. So what was the point of the warning?

I see, and if he didn't warn them, what would there be to heed? I would wonder by the logic above.

If he knew they weren’t going to heed the warning, what was the point of the warning?

Were you planning to return to the children and brain cancer discussion?

Sure. all you need do is remind me.

I just did.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Asinine Bible stories meant to teach God's might and righteousness
1. Punishing future generations for one generation's sins
In Ex. 20:5, God tells the people what he'll do if they worship false idols: "I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me."
Literally, he will punish people for the sins of their great-grandparents.

2. Killing entire families (and multitudes) because some of them questioned the authority of Moses and Aaron
Numbers 16: Men from four clans, with a following of 250 additonal men, confronted Moses and Aaron, accusing them of exalting themselves and taking all authority unto themselves. Moses is enraged and demands that they all assemble with their families the next day. At verse 31, God causes the earth to open and swallow up the rebellious men and their families.
At verse 41, the "whole community", having seen these families buried alive, accuse Moses and Aaron of causing their deaths. God responds by causing an epidemic to sweep through the congregation. The death toll is reported as 14,700.

3. Pro-lifers, take note: God kills a baby because David carried on adulterously with Bathsheba and sent her husband to die in battle
2 Samuel 12: 14: "because of this deed, you have utterly scorned the LORD. The child that is born to you shall die." This is spoken as a prophecy by Nathan, but in verse 15, the Bible credits God with assaulting the baby boy, who dies a week later.
The curse on David was actually worse: Nathan tells him that in every generation some of David's descendants will die a violent death, because he'd sent Uriah to the front lines to die. In addition, David's wives will be taken by various men and raped in broad daylight. One chapter later, this fate befalls Tamar.
Literally, God punishes adultery by killing an infant, and inflicts rape on women who had nothing to do with the supposed affront to the LORD. The adulterer, I guess, suffers vicariously.

4. God tells David to undertake a census, but then kills 70,000 people because David took the census.
2 Samuel 24: In verse 2, God instructs David to have all the people of Israel counted. (Note: to make this story even more of a conundrum, whoever wrote I Chronicles claims that Satan ordered the census. I Chron. 21:1.) For some reason, by 2 Sam. 24:10, David feels he has sinned in the census taking. I'll just say I have no freaking idea what this verse means or what the sin was. But God agrees with David, and his ultimate punishment is to send an epidemic, which wipes out 70,000 people.
You could literally die in a mass death event because God punished David for taking a census that God told David to oversee.

These stories are embarrassingly silly, but Christians uphold the Bible as the record of a just God. If the God-inflicted punishments in Numbers and 2 Samuel are just, then the word 'just' has no rational meaning. This is a barbaric deity. The notion of mass killings to display might and majesty is primitive.

 

[Learner]

If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping.

Said in a likewise manner...

..."the whooping" always comes after the warning.

So what. The critical aspect was Yahweh's forgiveness.

I mention the warnings that were given before the "whooping" because I see a false illustration automatically being pictured here - when you posted the statement below...

"If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping."

...the statement would mistakenly imply:

God just gives out "whoopings" willy nilly without reason when omitting the bit about 'being warned' and the consequences that would follow - which illustrates a rather different 'perspective' of God to the one your statement seems to allude to.

But Goddy, being omniscient, would have known that the warning wouldn’t be heeded, so … no need to warn at all.

He knew they would be heeded?

He knew that would NOT be heeded. So what was the point of the warning?

He knew that others would heed his warnings. Or that people would change their ways...by their own wills Like when the Hebrews were lost a few times but many returned to God etc..

I see, and if he didn't warn them, what would there be to heed? I would wonder by the logic above.

If he knew they weren’t going to heed the warning, what was the point of the warning?

see above

Were you planning to return to the children and brain cancer discussion?

Sure. all you need do is remind me.

I just did.

you got a thumbs up.

 

[steve_bank]

The practical purpose of religion to answer perennial plaguing questions that are difficult or impossible to answer.

I knew a Christian who said without his faith his head would be filled with quotations all day.

In pact cal terms thinking god acts in mysterious ways incomprehensible to us to explain evil and suffering is as good as any secular philosophy.

 

[pood]

If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping.

Said in a likewise manner...

..."the whooping" always comes after the warning.

So what. The critical aspect was Yahweh's forgiveness.

I mention the warnings that were given before the "whooping" because I see a false illustration automatically being pictured here - when you posted the statement below...

"If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping."

...the statement would mistakenly imply:

God just gives out "whoopings" willy nilly without reason when omitting the bit about 'being warned' and the consequences that would follow - which illustrates a rather different 'perspective' of God to the one your statement seems to allude to.

But Goddy, being omniscient, would have known that the warning wouldn’t be heeded, so … no need to warn at all.

He knew they would be heeded?

He knew that would NOT be heeded. So what was the point of the warning?

He knew that others would heed his warnings. Or that people would change their ways...by their own wills Like when the Hebrews were lost a few times but many returned to God etc..

I see, and if he didn't warn them, what would there be to heed? I would wonder by the logic above.

If he knew they weren’t going to heed the warning, what was the point of the warning?

see above

Were you planning to return to the children and brain cancer discussion?

Sure. all you need do is remind me.

I just did.

you got a thumbs up.

Upthread you said god only punished AFTER warning, which means that the warnings were DISREGARDED.

Since God, being omniscient, would know that the warnings would go unheeded, why warn in the first place? Sounds like some big theological shell game.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Said in a likewise manner...

..."the whooping" always comes after the warning.

So what. The critical aspect was Yahweh's forgiveness.

I mention the warnings that were given before the "whooping" because I see a false illustration automatically being pictured here - when you posted the statement below...

"If there is one thing Yahweh is bad at in the Tanakh... it is offering forgiveness. The mercy always comes after the ass whooping."

...the statement would mistakenly imply:

God just gives out "whoopings" willy nilly without reason when omitting the bit about 'being warned' and the consequences that would follow - which illustrates a rather different 'perspective' of God to the one your statement seems to allude to.

We don't forgive people because they deserve it, we forgive them because they need it.

I didn't suggest God just arbitrarily whoops ass. God usually has a reason (post Exodus except). But Yahweh was not known for being forgiving. Yahweh whooped ass, then usually provided some mercy. This was expected of deities back in the day. That culture has changed creates this conflict for theists that need to assume their good is omnibenevolent and forgiving because that wasn't the prerequisite back when these books were being compiled. This is something you'll need to get over.

 

[steve_bank]

And back to Yahweh being a reflection of the ancient Hebrew male patriarch.