How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren

[Nepenthe]

True, and I've edited my previous post to reflect this.

But the only reason natural disasters exist (from the perspective that god exists) is because he created a shitty planet. And if god is really "all powerful", then he could have created a better one. The fact that a plate rams into another plan, and that causes an earthquake, and someone falls down from a ladder and dies, is god's fault. Therefor, god has allowed a tragic act when it was within his power to stop it. Therefor, god's actions are evil, not the unthinking planet itself's.

Seems you ascribe a higher level of perfection to things than God does now. Just because earthquakes happen, our planet is automatically shitty? Earth isn't a shitty planet. Earth is an awesome planet, complete with fucking big-ass polar bears and laser beam technology and human beings who have the capability of imagining polar bears shooting laser beams existing on it! The atmosphere around here is great, the climates are diverse and wonderful, there's a ton of animals, we've got some nice-feeling gravity and shit. Let me tell you, I much prefer this planet to Mercury, thank you very much, even when it does get irritable bowel syndrome from time to time.

Regardless, unless you have the belief that God guides the process of every single thing that happens down to the most minute of detail (I don't, I'm sure most people don't, and I'm assuming neither do you), then I don't know how you can say with a straight face God is directly responsible for a man dying in an earthquake. I consider that on par with saying that the prisoners who were forced to build the highway that I drive on is responsible when people fall asleep at the wheel because they built something that people die on, thus they are evil. Tragic accidents just happen.

And I mean, why stop there? If God is evil, why is the earthquake the extent of his cruelty? Why didn't God simply push the guy from the ladder himself? Or why not wipe his entire family out earlier? Why wait? I know God works in mysterious ways, but the implied timeline of your argument is as biased and irrational as the believer who thinks God went out of his way to make his team win the Super Bowl and thus as easily as dismissed. Basically what would've had to have happened is this: Build planet > wait 4 billion years for humans to evolve > target specific family line > wait for one guy in this specific family line to get up on ladder > start earthquake. Wat? :|

Edited June 1, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Diogenes]

Consider this a nitpick, but why in the world would God need to stop natural disasters when natural disasters are not evil?

While I wouldn't call natural disasters evil, I don't think that changes the thrust of the argument. There are countless things that, in themselves, have no morality one way or the other, but cause incredible amounts of suffering, destruction, and death. If god is omniscient and omnipotent, and allows these things to happen, he can only be either evil or absolutely apathetic towards us. A god that loves us, knows that we will suffer needlessly, and can prevent that suffering with no cost to himself, but does not, doesn't make any sense.

[Nepenthe]

You're right; it doesn't make any sense, and ideally that should be the end of that particular conversation until someone more clever can come along and discover how simultaneous omnipresence and omniscience is logically possible. It should not be used to make a case on either side. Really, replace some words in the syllogisms and conclusion of Legendary's argument, and it can totally be flipped around to highlight all of the good things that happen in the world (and there is indeed a ton of awesome things that happen to a bunch of people every second of every minute of every hour of every day) in order to consistently and logically prove God's benevolence. But of course, no agnostic or athiest is going to take the latter at face value because children in Africa are starving, but in my personal opinion, the idea itself seems like completely hogwash thus no one should be using it to ascribe God's morality any actual definition.

[Diogenes]

I really don't think the two arguments cancel each other out. I think "good" has higher standards to live up to than "evil"; pointing to good things that happen doesn't prove god benevolent, it just disproves that he is infinitely malevolent. Causing (or allowing; keep in mind, apathy is still an option) good things doesn't automatically make up for the bad things.

Consider Superman; Supes is considered a morally good character because he does as much good as can reasonably expected. Because he's nigh-invincible, super strong, can fly, etc etc, he can do more good than an ordinary human, and thus he is morally obligated to do more good. No one would expect Average Joe on the street to prevent a plane from crashing, but if Superman just stood around and watched people die in a flaming mass of metal people would rightly ask what the fuck was wrong with him. That said, he can't be held accountable for every single thing that goes wrong in the world, because even he has his limits. But an omnipotent god doesn't, by definition; for him to do anything less than infinite good would be unacceptable, and we are damn sure not living in a world of infinite good.

[TheGerkuman]

This topic seems to be drifting into a general religion topic, and I'm pretty sure we have those.

[Nepenthe]

Forgetting the fact that I don't think something can simultaneously be omnipresence and omniscience in the first place, the two arguments don't cancel each other out only when we start trying to ascribe our own personal qualitative definitions to fundamentally undefined concepts like "good" and "evil," an argument that can be had all day on this front because it's entirely philosophical and thus presents a deep rabbit hole that I don't like getting into (because philosophy hurts my brain and I'm terrible at it).

Take your Superman example. You cannot tell me why he is objectively obligated to intervene with a situation he had absolutely nothing to do with, even if he has the ability to help, much less why that would make him an evil character if he remained apathetic. I'm sure your natural answer would be, "Well no shit Penth; saving people is good!" Why? "Well, because suffering is bad." Why? What is objectively good about humanity not experiencing any suffering whatsoever or, if you want to get totally nihilistic and take into account the finite and negligible impact we've had in this universe, what is objectively better about our existence than our nonexistence that we must protect outside of our mere biological inclinations to do so?

I just find that this conflict alone really only depends on how cynical or optimistic you are about the idea of God and that- along with a predictable lack of consideration for how things like the role of free will may come into play- I still find that this argument continues to be a futile one for anyone of any religious persuasion to make. It would be much better if we dropped it for now until, again, some amazing genius came along with a huge term paper and said, "Boom, here's how God works; wildcard bitches!"

@ Gerkuman: You're actually right about that. Apologies; I try not to get too mixed up in these kinds of conversations. Can I say though that the fundies who are introducing these programs are batshit insane to awe-inspiring levels and that- had they been Muslims or anything- there wouldn't be a story because the communities where this was taking place wouldn't let it get this far in the first place? Also, I think Mono said something earlier about this type of thing being protected, but is this type of indoctrination in a publicly funded area truly on the side of the law or would there be some leeway for a different interpretation if someone wanted to challenge it?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Roarey Raccoon]

So religious nuts are trying to pass on their faith to children, and this is news? Pretty permanent feature of religion and completely unsurprising. Perhaps if they teach what's really in the Bible instead of making it look like Jesus and Pals it'll get even more people to discard that silly shit. Either way it's not the governments job to sort out crap like this, it's the responsibility of ordinary people and parents especially to stand up and refuse this bullshit entering classrooms.

The problem isn't teaching genocide, which is taught anyway in history class. The problem is context, the fact that ANYTHING in the Bible or other religious scripture is taught as factual is venomous. Never mind lashing out at the rape and murder, start with not teaching kids that Jesus is their lord and saviour. That'd be swell really.

[Legendary Emerald]

"Well, because suffering is bad." Why? What is objectively good about humanity not experiencing any suffering whatsoever...

I've heard this argument before. It only makes sense if you completely ignore human emotions. Realistically, it just doesn't hold up.

When it comes down to it, most human beings have the need to feel as if they are in control of their lives. Most will avoid situations where they would cause pain or death to themselves, because it causes displeasure and loss of existence. When someone causes pain or death to another person without permission, they are taking away that person's freedom to stay away from pain and death. Thus, all of morality can be boiled down to a simple stealing metaphor.

[Nepenthe]

I've heard this argument before. It only makes sense if you completely ignore human emotions. Realistically, it just doesn't hold up.

When it comes down to it, most human beings have the need to feel as if they are in control of their lives. Most will avoid situations where they would cause pain or death to themselves, because it causes displeasure and loss of existence. When someone causes pain or death to another person without permission, they are taking away that person's freedom to stay away from pain and death. Thus, all of morality can be boiled down to a simple stealing metaphor.

While the argument is irrational in application if you're going to ignore human emotion and experience, it isn't really illogical, and I'm looking at this from a logical viewpoint anyway because again- once we start ascribing our own beliefs and views and whatnot to intangible undefined concepts like good and evil- the modern argument about morality and God can then be framed in any way one sees fit to frame it, and that leads to the endless back and forth I see on message boards that makes me collapse at my desk like a Shar Pei dog. It's just all inherently subjective until we can get some good definitions going. Hell, I still maintain that if we all agree that simultaneous omniscience and omnipresence isn't even possible anyway, then that's truly the end of this tangent because it's an inherently terrible place to start from for anyone if we're trying to see if God's good or bad.

[Diogenes]

Take your Superman example. You cannot tell me why he is objectively obligated to intervene with a situation he had absolutely nothing to do with, even if he has the ability to help, much less why that would make him an evil character if he remained apathetic. I'm sure your natural answer would be, "Well no shit Penth; saving people is good!" Why? "Well, because suffering is bad." Why? What is objectively good about humanity not experiencing any suffering whatsoever or, if you want to get totally nihilistic and take into account the finite and negligible impact we've had in this universe, what is objectively better about our existence than our nonexistence that we must protect outside of our mere biological inclinations to do so?

[Nepenthe]

My point is not that anyone is incapable of condeming God, rather that the logic currently presented in this thread does not exclusively allow for the condemnation of God. We're right back to the idea that we do not use objective morality to live our daily lives (because I agree: it's cold and cruel and irrational and mentally unwieldy for us to function), in turn meaning each of us forms our own sort of definitions and points of reference for what good and evil really are. Yeah, they're roughly in line with one another for the sake of harmonious society, e.g., most people agree on "murder is bad," but it is nonetheless subjective for every human being, e.g, "what specifically constitutes murder? What is an exception and what isn't? Is abortion murder? War? Are some murders morally justified? etc.". This ultimately goes back to my point that this subjectivity allows enough wiggle room for anyone of any religious persuasion to claim that God is malevolent or benevolent based on the whole "Well, he's omnipotent and did X, Y, and Z" line of thought, meaning it is pointless for anyone to use it when forming a logical argument.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Diogenes]

Regardless of whatever argument anyone wants to make, things that any sane person would consider horrific keep happening. Trying to argue that god is benevolent when innocent people suffer horribly and die does not fucking work.

I mean, am I just totally misunderstanding you, or are you seriously saying there's a valid argument to the effect that "yes, children starve to death, people die of a host of terrible diseases, natural disasters wipe out entire cities, but some good things happen so god's totally a good guy"?

[Badnik Zero]

The Old Testament is misunderstood or ignored by Christians because Christianity for the most part is a Roman expy of a Jewish messiah cult. The two cultures clashed in the Roman-governed province of Judea, which culminated in the Jewish-Roman Wars. Jesus was born into this time and gained many followers after his death across the Empire. Jesus was an enemy of the Roman state. It's like if during our wars in Muslim countries, people flocked in numbers to some martyred sheik's belief system. They used to feed Christians to the lions for 300 years. When Rome stopped doing that, they instead broke ties to source material and focused solely on the salvation themes present in the Jesus texts, aka the New Testament. That's why Christianity doesn't gel with the Old Testament. Had to say it.

As for this group, it should be up to the school district if they want these people close to their children. I'm not for across-the-board bans on religion. I don't approve of the message of exterminating "Amalek", but people are free to believe whatever the hell they want. Though I'd like them to prove how somehow a rival desert tribe from 3,000 years ago has relevance to a modern way of thinking. This is how ancient wars were fought, right? Wipe out my village and I wipe out yours. Shit is not that way anymore. Furthermore, you do not get to transfer some eternal god-sanctioned villainhood onto people who have nothing to do with that rival desert tribe. Even if I believed in god I would not be so self-righteous to believe he tells me who is of Amalek and who I deserve to kill. If you are a bible reader try harder to struggle with this passage than the one on homosexuality, which many don't struggle with at all.

Edited June 2, 2012 by American Ristar

[Nepenthe]

Regardless of whatever argument anyone wants to make, things that any sane person would consider horrific keep happening. Trying to argue that god is benevolent when innocent people suffer horribly and die does not fucking work.

I mean, am I just totally misunderstanding you, or are you seriously saying there's a valid argument to the effect that "yes, children starve to death, people die of a host of terrible diseases, natural disasters wipe out entire cities, but some good things happen so god's totally a good guy"?

I've never actually stated my beliefs in God beyond I don't think it's logically possible for him to be omnipresent and omniscient at the same time, so where in this topic have I even suggested that he is totally, completely, unequivocally, 110% good? I don't understand how you could've gotten that throughout my long-winded explanations other than a possibility you may be offended by or resent the fact that I'm not taking an irreligious position. I have only argued that:

1) If God is omnipresent, he is not entirely malevolent or benevolent because he is responsible for everything in the universe, whether good, bad, or neutral. Whatever side of the spectrum he falls on is in the eye of the beholder based entirely on how cynical or optimistic the beholder is.

2) Neither you nor Legendary ever presented an argument that outright disproves God's benevolence other than an emotional "well, bad things happen so God is bad," which is the same exact logic believers use to argue the latter. It's a baseline platform that is not only inherently flawed anyway but rationally leads to no meaningful conclusion about God, just the kind of exhausting back-and-forth I predicted a few times beforehand would result in engaging in this particular portion of the debate like what I've landed myself in with you right now.

So can we please agree to disagree since I'm getting tired after a few hours of this and you don't seem to understand me at all?

Edited June 2, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Diogenes]

I've never actually stated my beliefs in God beyond I don't think it's logically possible for him to be omnipresent and omniscient at the same time, so where in this topic have I even suggested that he is totally, completely, unequivocally, 110% good?

That's not what I meant; I thought you were saying that you take both sides of the argument as equally valid. If you take them as equally invalid, then fine, my mistake.

1) If God is omnipresent, he is not entirely malevolent or benevolent because he is responsible for everything in the universe, whether good, bad, or neutral. Whatever side of the spectrum he falls on is in the eye of the beholder based entirely on how cynical or optimistic the beholder is.

And I'm saying good and evil don't work like that; it's not a video game karma meter where you can make up for one evil act by doing one good act. You don't get one free murder for every 10 lives you save. Or every 100, or every 1 million. If you see someone suffering and refuse to help them, in spite of having the resources to do so, that is terrible. And when this has been happening since the dawn of man, on a global scale, when it would cost you literally nothing to help...that is monstrously evil on a scale that can't even be comprehended. There is nothing that can balance that out. Especially given, again, he can do literally anything, literally effortlessly, so anything good that comes out of it can be gained through some method that doesn't involve suffering. There is no reason for a good god to cause or allow suffering.

So can we please agree to disagree since I'm getting tired after a few hours of this and you don't seem to understand me at all?

If you're not interested in continuing, it's on you to back out. I'm not going to hound you about this, but if you're going to reply, I am fully willing to continue.

[Badnik Zero]

I've always accepted the religious reasoning that we are created to do for ourselves, it makes enough sense to me to excuse a cruel god. The devil is introduced so evil has a "home" so to speak, but why is that even necessary?

I just wanna add to something on-topic as well, that the Amalek scenario sucks because it gives license to say a group of people is entirely irredeemable down to their children and possessions. It suggests evil can be in the blood.

[Roarey Raccoon]

2) Neither you nor Legendary ever presented an argument that outright disproves God's benevolence other than an emotional "well, bad things happen so God is bad," which is the same exact logic believers use to argue the latter. It's a baseline platform that is not only inherently flawed anyway but rationally leads to no meaningful conclusion about God, just the kind of exhausting back-and-forth I predicted a few times beforehand would result in engaging in this particular portion of the debate like what I've landed myself in with you right now.

So can we please agree to disagree since I'm getting tired after a few hours of this and you don't seem to understand me at all?

Do forgive my intrusion into this, but by what criteria do you propose to judge benevolence other than an observance of actions and their results? The idea that a God responsible for the creation of all life and the universe that contains it along with the rules that govern it isn't to be judged by the results of those creations is a very flimsy argument indeed. "Some bad things happen" is also a shitty argument, so elaboration is needed there too, I agree. How about the fact that the universe and practically everything in it is hostile towards all forms of life; the fact that the natural world consists of an endless, merciless struggle for survival, paved at every step with suffering and strife? The fact that we as human beings have only partially eluded the horrors of surviving in the wild through our own ingenuity and centuries of work and innovation, even then being killed in untold numbers in a huge variety of hideous ways? This isn't even counting the damage we do to eachother on purpose.

These things do illustrate a lack of benevolence on the part of a creator, if there was one, because the idea of one being charitable and caring despite being responsible for all of this shit is utterly absurd. I've had a look at your argument and what you've got to realize is that whilst we can all discuss the nuances of morality for individual events and actions, there is still a universal consensus that dying painfully and systematically is not a pleasantry. It is not logical to dismiss these values as being merely subjective and therefore unable to constitute a valid argument, because there is no perspective of suffering that isn't a human one. What you're doing is completely overstepping all the terms of the argument and making new ones on your own, proposing that one should argue the subject of benevolence in a different way. You need to provide what this other way of looking at it is instead of just stating nobody can prove gods benevolence or lack of it. It's perfectly logical to look at this crazy ass universe and say that if an intelligent creator is responsible they aren't charitable and loving. God is responsible for the way we experience events and interpret them, responsible for the experience of suffering and misery, as he must be as creator of our species. Suffering and misery DO fucking exist, therefore god aint charitable. It really isn't that hard to grasp mate.

Ultimately, this is all still a hypothetical discussion with hypothetical properties for a hypothetical God and it's all very needlessly complicated and contrived. Simply removing God from the picture entirely makes a lot more sense, so try dropping the idea of one completely and escape from the primitive musings of centuries old uneducated tribesmen.

----------

Alright, I feel like going on with myself for a bit actually, so I'll attempt to put all this together in the simplest way I can.

First we want to actually be clear on what we mean by God. It's common for one to switch between a specifically religious deity to a wider philosophical idea of a creator whenever it is convenient to do so. When we talk of a general idea of a creator the possibilities are endless and we can be here for the rest of our lives arguing hypothetically about a universally undefined entity. This issue isn't about philosophy, it's about religion, and religions have specific, defined gods with personalities.

Since this topic is about Christianity we're looking at the Christian God; it would be quite a divergence to start discussing Hinduism or something in this thread.

The God of the Christian Bible is defined in the source material as being jealous, aggressive, violent, hungry for blood sacrifice (of animals and even children); he's contemptuous of women, forbids behaviors without explanation that are often completely arbitrary (eg. don't eat shellfish) and only concerns himself with the future of a single tribe of people in the middle east. He's even gullible enough to accept a wager with Satan in the book of Job, where an entire family, slaves, servants and livestock are systematically slaughtered for nothing more significant than a chance to say "I told you so." (God lost the bet, by the way, and he was tempted by Satan in the same way he punishes us for doing).

Have a go at trying to define the character whom drowned the world as anything other than a massive cunt.

And people want to force children to encounter this revolting story not as general literary and historical education (and I believe the Bible should definitely be taught in this context) but as a factual resource. You have got to be absolutely shitting me. The level of retarded here, as well as genuine malice towards children and their intellectual freedoms is shocking considering it is happening in America, the most powerful and developed country in the world.

Fuck semantic distance-pissing hypotheses about defining terminology, that gets us nowhere in this thread.

[The Weeb with No Name]

I wonder how people live in security knowing there is a wrathful omnipotent God ready to wreck your shit whenever he wants to...

When I was a kid and neck deep in that stuff, I remember crying myself to sleep sometimes just thinking about it. How the fuck are you going to teach kids stuff like this?

[TheGerkuman]

God lost the bet by the way

By what reckoning? Job's argument was 'I haven't done anything wrong; I'm not blaming God but I want him to tell me why this is happening to me'. That seems to suggest he won. (His beef was with Job's friends who said 'You're in this mess because you obviously did something wrong, since bad things only happen to bad people.').

I know it's a small quibble, but I'm crap at debating so I'd rather start small and work my way up. *shrug*

[Mono]

By what reckoning? Job's argument was 'I haven't done anything wrong; I'm not blaming God but I want him to tell me why this is happening to me'. That seems to suggest he won. (His beef was with Job's friends who said 'You're in this mess because you obviously did something wrong, since bad things only happen to bad people.').

I know it's a small quibble, but I'm crap at debating so I'd rather start small and work my way up. *shrug*

Pretty sure this is how it ended. Job never gave up faith in God, no matter what happend to him. God won this "game", because Job still believed in God.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Mono

[Badnik Zero]

I agree with Diogenes and Roarz, but the existence of suffering doesn't necessarily exclude benevolence from the equation. Believers are more than willing to overlook the problem of suffering, blaming it on the devil, or more rightly on evil men, while considering god the sole source of all things good. It's a skill developed by the religious.

Edited June 2, 2012 by American Ristar

[Roarey Raccoon]

By what reckoning? Job's argument was 'I haven't done anything wrong; I'm not blaming God but I want him to tell me why this is happening to me'. That seems to suggest he won. (His beef was with Job's friends who said 'You're in this mess because you obviously did something wrong, since bad things only happen to bad people.').

I know it's a small quibble, but I'm crap at debating so I'd rather start small and work my way up. *shrug*

Job did lose his shit at god and protested at his mistreatment, he only stopped slagging god off when god himself came down and chastised Job to his face, which terrified him into submission. So yeah, that's not how you win a bet and god, being the cunt he is, was happy to let Satan butcher a family and torture a man over a dumbass wager. It was all okay in the end though, wasn't it, because Job got a new family and loads of wealth (the previous family just had a bad run of luck I suppose).

¹⁹ He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust and ashes.

²⁰ I cry unto thee, and thou dost not hear me: I stand up, and thou regardest me not.

²¹ Thou art become cruel to me: with thy strong hand thou opposest thyself against me.

²² Thou liftest me up to the wind; thou causest me to ride upon it, and dissolvest my substance.

²³ For I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living.

²⁴ Howbeit he will not stretch out his hand to the grave, though they cry in his destruction.

²⁵ Did not I weep for him that was in trouble? was not my soul grieved for the poor?

Bear in mind he's scared shitless and surrounded by hostile "friends" who have been scolding him since they arrived. This is as close to a 'fuck you' as god ever gets.

[Mono]

To be honest, and coming from a Christian, I think The Book of Job is just a story, trying to keep people in the faith. I think they even have found similar stories in other ancient societies.

It's still one of the greatest pieces of ancient literature.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Mono

[Roarey Raccoon]

To be honest, and coming from a Christian, I think The Book of Job is just a story, trying to keep people in the faith. I think they even have found similar stories in other ancient societies.

It's still one of the greatest pieces of ancient literature.

How do you differentiate between the bits in the Bible that are "just a story" and the bits that are "true"?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Honestly, I think older religions had it right before Christianity became a major power like the Greek, Norse, and Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. They knew their gods were a bunch of jerkasses who did whatever the fuck they felt like for better or worse.

But they were a bit more tolerant of other religions, which kinda upsets me about how this intolerance is what is being used by these Christian Zealots to get genocide seen in a positive light.

Edited June 2, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic