I’ve been to fundamentalist churches, and I know what they preach. Why do you ignore the rest(and majority) of what is taught in them? Why do you pretend that the Old Testament doesn’t exist for one and all to read and examine? You’re not fooling anyone here.
Does Jesus matter? No.
When “love” is defined as “we’ll enslave, torture and slaughter entire nations of people for their own good because we love them”, yes.
A truly loving God could not be a tyrant at heart, correct? If that’s the case, and if Jesus is Yahweh, it’s up to a nonbeliever, who agrees to run with MyFootsZZZ proposition, to rationally explain how and why Yahweh/Jesus evolved as He did from the OT to the NT.
You are getting bogged down in the weeds imo, which is related to why I asked MyFootsZZZ whether the problem lied with Jesus’ teachings themselves, which for the sake of this conversation are assumed to be God’s own, or fundamentalists’ dogma about the Bible…
The topic of this thread is not “You just learned that the God of just a section of the New Testament existed…” Nobody is getting bogged down here-they are just refusing to put on the blinders necessary to go down the narrow path you want them to.
:rolleyes: Because it’s all made up. That isn’t a hard thing for an unbeliever to explain at all. Explaining it only causes problems for someone committed to taking it seriously.
Is all that matters as far as the question posed in the OP. Not what the Bible says, or Jesus says, or what you say; what the fundamentalists believe is what matters.
You have to do a cost-benefit analysis.
Let’s say I’m a good person, so I rebel against God and work with people who follow my example. Then, not only me, but all my friends and followers are eternally damned.
Better for us to be less-than-moral people on this planet and then all of us get to chill out in the clouds eternally when we die. More peace and tranquility for everybody.
So come up with a religion where the sole indisputable tenet of that religion is that God is a truly loving God.
Get back to me when you do, because no such religion presently exists.
You want to defend the Christian God, then you’re also defending everything that God / Jesus says is accurate, which is the OT.
And the OT is utterly indefensible.
You are misstating the topic of this thread, which was, *“So God exists, and you must ‘follow him’ to score a place in heaven. The Christian fundamentalists were right – he IS an asshole. Do you submit?” *
I am trying to clarify what was asked, as it didn’t make sense to me how Christian fundamentalists, who for the sake of this discussion were declared to right about God, could be worshipping a Being whose nature is love but He’s still considered an asshole anyway i.e. in MyFootsZZZ’s opinion, is it just that Christian fundamentalists aren’t carrying out a loving God’s wishes as they are told, or is it assholish to be loving?
Don’t blame me for what was proposed!
As soft as a target as the OT is, you can KO the New Testament in one hit as well.
- God is love, sayeth Jesus.
- The only way to get into heaven and avoid eternal damnation is through me, sayeth Jesus.
- Ergo, only Christians can get into heaven, after Jesus arrives.
- Without Jesus, you’ll burn in hell for the simple crime of being born at all, because you’re born a “sinner”.
- Therefore, Jesus endorses everlasting hell punishment for those who have committed no crime in their lifetime.
So God creates people to punish forever, for the crime of having been created.
That is not justice. It sure as hell isn’t love. The New Testament self-pwns just as much as the Old Testament did.
And for shits and giggles, ask yourself this question: God requires an army to battle Satan in Revelations… why?
He’s effing God. He can snap his fingers and remove Satan from existence. But he’s got an army, complete with Bronze Age chariots and horsemen. Horsemen of the apocalypse.
So, God fights Satan with all the imagination of a bronze age idiot, because the Bible was written by Bronze Age IDIOTS.
Did you not read MyFootsZZZ’s proposition, do you not know what “hypothetical” means, or both? :rolleyes:
A truly loving God wouldn’t condemn anyone to eternal punishment.
A truly loving God would allow us to reach him, if we ernestly wanted to.
A truly loving God wouldn’t be much like what fundamentalists teach about God. The God that fundamentalists preach about is one I can’t respect. I have a really hard time respecting anyone who would worship such a creature, but I try to anyway.
What fundamentalist sect do you belong to? I’d like to see what they teach.
You don’t get to “chill out”; you are either spending all your time praising God, or gloating over the screams of the damned, depending on which fundies you listen to. And then there’s the ones who think that only 100,000 total of humanity will be saved, period.
I read it. It’s about the God of the fundamentalists being real; a God that’s all about cruelty and malice, hatred and bloodlust, bigotry and tyranny. Pure evil. NOT the “God is Love” feelgood fluffy-bunny version of Christianity you are trying to shove into the hypothetical.
-
For the sake of discussion, MyFootsZZZ stated that the Christian fundamentalists were right about God.
-
These Christian fundamentalists teach that God is love; so, for the sake of this exercise, it is a truth!
-
In my reality, love is antithetical to tyranny; therefore, a loving God cannot be a true tyrant.
-
Unless MyFootsZZZ equates “love” with “tyranny”, we’d agree that this hypothetical Christian God is a good one, who couldn’t use eternal coercion to get His way; this would then indicate to me, from the phrasing of the hypothetical, that MyFootsZZZ’s true problem lies with Christian fundamentalists rather than with this loving God.
-
If MyFootsZZZ would now wish to state that this loving God isn’t truly loving, it would only serve to undermine the initial proposition (that the Christian fundamentalists’ God is love,) making this whole hypothetical exercise a supremely silly one.
It breaks down in your step #2, because that just isn’t all fundamentalists teach about God, is it? What sect do you belong to? Let us see what they actually teach.
Your post is the perfect example of someone putting their fingers in their ears and going “lalalalallalalala”.
Your entire premise is, imagine a nice fictional version of Christianity where the fundamentalists only believe that God is love, and nothing else, they teach NOTHING ELSE at all, and they ignore all the other stuff in the Bible which clearly has nothing to do with love. Now, while you’re imagining all that, shut off your brain, and pretend the fundamentalists don’t believe in any other portion of the Bible. They only believe in pretend fantasyland Christianity which exists only as a hypothetical in my imagination.
Wow, wouldn’t that be a great religion?
Yes, that’s very nice. Have a cookie.
How are you defining “fundamentalist”? What would lead you to believe that I might belong to any denomination?
I am a non-dogmatic Christian who believes that morality does not come from God’s will, who believes that atheists can potentially be just as moral (or, immoral) as any religious person, because I am someone who understands the objective natures of logic and morality, which are accessible to anyone who thinks…Christian fundamentalists who haven’t thought through what they are taught to be the truth in the NT gives Christianity a bad name!
Please believe me, I’d rather associate with good atheists who respect others than with bad Christians who don’t! 
2: They do no such thing.
3: You use a different definition of love.
4: You forgot to add a #4 (“Profit!”)
5: The Fundies are right about God in this scenario. So yes, he’s a tyrant and a monster.
6: Your initial premise is false however. Their God is Evil, not love.
This diversion reminds me of one of my favorite parts of the “Is There an Afterlife?” debate with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, the specific point I’m referring to I’ll link to here.
"There’s a comparable story I was told about the death of, I think it was a Roman Catholic priest, it could be any Christian official, really, who gets to St Peter’s gate and is told ‘well you’re a well-done and good and faithful servant, here’s your place we’ve been preparing for you in paradise.’ And he says to St Peter ‘But I see that there’s terrible suffering and deprivation and misery among the souls in hell, surely my place is with them and ministering to them,’ and Peter says ‘You really don’t get it, do you?’
"One of the reasons why I like doing this, some people ask ‘Don’t you ever get tired of debating with the religious?’ No I don’t, because you never know what they’re going to say next. Sam and I don’t mind being called predictable. We know what we think, we say it straight out what we think we know, what we think it’s not possible to know, and so on. But this evening we’ve already had your suggestion that God is really only a guru, a friend when you’re in need. I mean, he wouldn’t do anything like bugger around with Job to prove a point. Which I tell you right now must mean that that book is not the word of God. Let me just tell you something- for hundreds and thousands of years this kind of discussion would have been in most places impossible to have, or Sam and I would have been having it at the risk of our lives.
“Religion now comes to us in this smiley-face ingratiating way because it’s had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way that it behaved when it was strong and when it really did believe that it had God on its side.”
I thought it was 144,000… and that they were all Jewish; more specifically 12,000 from each of 12 tribes. (I have a mental image of an apologetic angel: “Sorry, you’ve been fantastic really, you’re everything we could want in one of the saved, but we’re all full up on Judah”).
Or is this 100,000 some other number? (I’m not all that up on fundamentalists, we don’t have many around here).