Something something something sounds about right. The other day I was perusing a two- year old thread, and I saw Fenris online (little green light next to his name).
Yea, calling Christ a cunt is a great way to snap them out of that whole Christian thing. I hear that telling them it’s the same thing as believing in dragons and unicorns is pretty effective too.
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
Yea, calling Christ a cunt is a great way to snap them out of that whole Christian thing. I hear that telling them it’s the same thing as believing in dragons and unicorns is pretty effective too.
[/QUOTE]
Well, when the starving babies, gang rapes and genocides are pointed out Christians just say “God works in mysterious ways”. I guess it’s hopeless. 
[QUOTE=Princhester]
Explain to me precisely how no reasonable argument can be made out that the Christian god is an extremely immoral being, by the standards of morality many Christians avow. Explain to me precisely why it is therefore unreasonable to state that the Christian god is a bad, bad being. Explain to me precisely why it is unreasonable to use an insulting term that your opponent has just used back at him.
[/QUOTE]
Because it’s trollish, that’s why. I don’t give a rat’s ass whether the Christian God is moral or not; I don’t believe it exists, what with my being an atheist and all. Whether or not badchad’s comment was accurate is irrelevant. It’s quite clear to me that we was only trolling for a reaction from Christian members and that’s the sum total of the issue I have with it. However well worded and accurate, all that other crap you mention is moot.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Well, when the starving babies, gang rapes and genocides are pointed out Christians just say “God works in mysterious ways”. I guess it’s hopeless.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, all Christians do not say that. Neither do all atheists talk about magical sky pixies. Rather Cardwen’s point I think.
If you treat all Christians as Inquisition apologists, homophobes, genocidal Crusaders or shellfish haters based on Biblical passages, guess what reaction you’re bound to get from the majority who aren’t so inclined?
OK, how do all these other non-apologists explain it? God’s testing us in some mysterious way? Tell me how have I overgeneralized here.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
But we will see. I hope his example will encourage other Dopers to concentrate on disagreeing without being disagreeable.
Myself certainly not least of all.
Happy New Year.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Good luck with that.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
OK, how do all these other non-apologists explain it? God’s testing us in some mysterious way? Tell me how have I overgeneralized here.
[/QUOTE]
You’re serious? You’ve never heard a nonapologist say that passages in “the Good Book” which describe God calling for genocidal action are the rationalized justifications of religious leaders recorded as scripture in the history of an expansionist desert tribe? -That certainly isn’t doctrine, but it’s also certainly how I see it.
Conversely, many liberal Christian denominations recognize allegorical intent in some passages and, where they believe antagonistic action is accurately described as God’s expressed will, believe
[QUOTE=xenophon41]
Conversely, many liberal Christian denominations recognize allegorical intent in some passages and, where they believe antagonistic action is accurately described as God’s expressed will, believe
[/QUOTE]
Ack! Hit submit accidently. To be continued.
I’m talking about present day starving babies and genocides. I’m not talking biblical accuracy as the word of God.
If you offer that the bad stuff is man’s fault and, golly gee, God would just love it if we would all starting acting nice - yes, I’ve heard that “explanation”.
“Conversely, many liberal Christian denominations recognize allegorical intent in some passages and, where they believe antagonistic action is accurately described as God’s expressed will, believe…” that many of the accounts are recorded decades or even centuries after their occurence, and their meaning has been filtered and distorted by time. (Cite from a liberal Christian. -Interesting short thread which deals with your question.)
There are other explanations besides the mysterious ways argument.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
I’m talking about present day starving babies and genocides. I’m not talking biblical accuracy as the word of God.
If you offer that the bad stuff is man’s fault and, golly gee, God would just love it if we would all starting acting nice - yes, I’ve heard that “explanation”.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, sorry, I didn’t take that meaning from your question.
So I take it you’re dissatisfied with the idea of God as a non-dictatorial deity? Should he organize the universe so that conservation of energy/matter allows free energy, too?
I’m entirely dissatisfied with how “love” has to be redefined so as to make the Christian god seem a loving one. Was the conservation of energy and matter some sort of noble sacrifice God did for us as well? I’m pretty strongly an atheist, but the Christian god gets me rolling my eyes a lot quicker than some others.
That’s all well and good, CarnalK, but I’m not sure why you think any religion in general or Christianity in particular must explain human imperfection, any more than those religions must explain any other aspects of physical reality. As said a few times by others in this current multithread metadiscussion, religion deals with metaphysical questions. If you find those types of questions pointless and/or the attempted answers nonsensical, you are certainly able to pursue your own quest for understanding using your own set of tools. By itself, that just doesn’t invalidate anyone else’s tools or methodology.
[QUOTE=xenophon41]
“Conversely, many liberal Christian denominations recognize allegorical intent in some passages and, where they believe antagonistic action is accurately described as God’s expressed will, believe…” that many of the accounts are recorded decades or even centuries after their occurence, and their meaning has been filtered and distorted by time. (Cite from a liberal Christian. -Interesting short thread which deals with your question.)
There are other explanations besides the mysterious ways argument.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe there is anyone here who believes that our debatably misguided incursion into Iraq was in actual sober fact the will of the Christian God as expressed to George W. Bush that he should lead the forces of Truth, Righteousness, and The American Way to put those misguided Ay-rabs in their place. (A few people who might defend it on other grounds, certainly. A number of people who might think that Dubya believes that, sure. But nobody who actually believes that God came down in a vision and said, “George, I want you to get rid of Saddam Hussein, to My greater Glory, so help Me, Me!”)
This being the case, and I’d venture to suggest ( ::: looks around nervously for Bible Man ::: ) that there are no Christians here who hold that God delivered the precise text of the Bible as written by Archangel Express Service in its present verbatim form, it’s not at all impossible that Dubya’s claim has historical precedent in that of Joshua bar Nun that “God told me that he wants us to wipe out them there Amelekites, root and branch,” or many another “God commanded X atrocity” passage. I’m very skeptical of the story of Elisha, the two she-bears, and the 42 taunting brats, myself. And Samson was neither the first nor the last he-man to be ensnared by the wiles of a Delilah and misled into some stupid moves – if he too is not pure legend, with all the historicity of Dietrich von Bern.
Bottom line, the Bible is a morass of myth, legend, slanted historical narrative, prophetic writing, apocalyptic writing, slanted biography, pieces of correspondence, poetry, ana of collected proverbs, and Diogenes knows what else, each element of which has to be analyzed for historicity, factuality, intended moral message, and anything else you care to critique for, on an individual basis. And that has relatively little to do with whether the God of whom it speaks is real or not, and if so what His characteristics might be.
[QUOTE=xenophon41]
That’s all well and good, CarnalK, but I’m not sure why you think any religion in general or Christianity in particular must explain human imperfection, any more than those religions must explain any other aspects of physical reality.
[/QUOTE]
The Christian god is held up as one with great concern/love for mankind. He created us “in his image”. He almost wiped us out in a flood because we were so disappointing. Those are some of the reasons I think the Christian go has got some explaining to do. Do these points I raise surprise you?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Yeah, actually. It may change back again. Tuba says it’s something to do with the system or something. Or something about something. Or something.
[/QUOTE]
Or then again, it may be something else.
[QUOTE=Dr. Rieux]
Or then again, it may be something else.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently, the system is biased in favor of Christians and the Christian god. Oh well. Just another burden we faithful have to bear.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Do these points I raise surprise you?
[/QUOTE]
No. I think they’re excellent points to raise when confronted by an inerrantist or by a social activist group who wants your government to act in ways they think will appeases their insane Deity. Just don’t elevate those folks to Spokespeople for Christianity. (Feel free to believe they speak for Xianity*, though.)
*[sub]Pronounced “ex-sanity”. 
[/sub]
I’m not sure what my points have to do with a theocracy or inerrantists. I’m talking about believing in a supposed all powerful and all loving entity that simply doesn’t show it. Christians are in an abusive relationship and need help. 