The “God is love” excuse is so prevalent in Christian thinking and apologetics that it is literally used as an excuse for pretty much anything. I say excuse because these three words are uttered without as much as a shred of evidence, minus of course the propaganda piece we all know of as the Bible. Further, this is not the impression one would get from reading the bible.
Imagine for a moment what a perfectly loving mother would be like. A perfectly loving mother would reassure her child any and all times the child faltered. This could be scraping a knee or going to prison, the mother would be there to remind the child that they are loved, even if they don’t agree with the actions of the child. But the perfectly loving mother wouldn’t punish the child.
Indeed, a perfectly loving mother would use moments of faltering as teaching opportunities. The goal here is that the child, through experience, learns valuable lessons. There is no punishment here, but reflection. A chance for the child to reflect on their actions, what they mean to the child and others, and how to improve themselves and grow as moral, intelligent, thinking beings.
A perfectly loving mother would encourage her child to do things that were interesting for the child. This mother would never force her child to compete in the sport or competition of her choice, instead asking the child what makes them happy and supporting that goal. Absolute selflessness is the hallmark of this trait. Each child of this mother would equally be allowed to express their own intelligence, talents, feelings, needs, and fears not only fully supported, but also without retribution.
A perfectly loving mother would forgive effortlessly and completely. Transgressions would be washed away instantly and forgotten in the mind of a perfectly loving mother. When the apology is accepted, the slate is wiped clean for the child, free to grow without fear of future retribution.
There are mothers that exhibit some of these qualities around us. The mother that loves her child no matter how brutal a crime was committed is a mother committed to love. Love doesn’t mean “tough love”, it just means love. So called “tough love” is the deliberate suspension of love as a way to instill an understanding of independence and responsibility. I’m not here to debate the merits of tough love, mind you, only to identify that such a parenting style is not perfect love. It may or may not be the most realistic or beneficial parenting technique, but it is a move away from perfect love.
There are many other things that parents do that are not perfect love. I have been guilty of some of a couple of these, I admit, but then again I don’t pretend I’m perfect. Becoming angry is in itself not perfect love. Yelling. Spanking. Taking away privileges.
Even worse, ignoring, abusing, abandonment are much farther away from perfect love. Think of the song “The boy named Sue“, by Johnny Cash. In a sense, the song is about a father that was going to leave, but loved his son enough to take measures (naming him “Sue”) so that the child would grow up having to fight and be tough and independent. As the father explains this to the child (now an adult) at the end of the song, they embrace and share a beverage. So this could be a gesture of love, but the father still ABANDONED his child, and until that moment the story teller hated his father. That child grew up mad and upset and had to fight and probably cried himself to sleep more nights than not.
So an interesting song, but NOT perfect love. Hell, the father specifically says “And I know you hate me, and you got the right/ To kill me now, and I wouldn’t blame you if you do.” The father knows in this song that he did something horrible by abandoning his child, and all he really wanted was to explain to his son that he did this one thing to hopefully help in his absence.
So perfect love is not tough love. Perfect love is not punishment. Perfect love is not anger. Perfect love is not selfish. Perfect love is not abuse, neglect, or abandonment. And if I stopped this article right here, printed copies, and distributed it to churches, they would probably pick up the theme and use it as a sermon. After all, GOD is perfect love, so let’s be like him!
Only it’s total bullshit. Bible god does not exhibit perfect love, and repeatedly acts like a tyrant. First, he makes pronouncements of what is right and what is wrong with no rhyme or reason whatsoever. Killing is equally as bad as homosexuality is equally as bad as wearing blended fabric clothing. Not once does bible god discuss the merits of morality in a social society, he just makes rules. His only reason given is “because it pleases me.” This isn’t love, it’s mind control.
And based on the single reason given, it is clear that everything he does is for HIS pleasure, not ours. He doesn’t love us, he loves playing with us. That is a big distinction. Hell, he goes out of his way to inconvenience us, just to make sure we are kissing his ass and loving HIM as much as possible, not the other way around. And the ONLY WAY he could think to forgive us for something our ancient ancestors did was a brutal, disgusting human sacrifice. And no, he didn’t “love us so much he gave his only son”, he despises us so much that he couldn’t bring himself to forgiving us for something we did not do. That’s the lesson.
Not once in the bible did god exhibit perfect love. He never forgave without punishment. He held on to anger generated by people we never met that died long before we were here. He forces his goals on to us. His “tough love” would be considered psychotic, abusive, and illegal if any human tried it. And just saying that it it must be perfect love, when it is clearly not, doesn’t make it so. It’s still psychotic, it’s still abusive, and merely reinterpreting the meaning of words doesn’t change the actions.
And that’s ultimately what apologists and the religious are doing. They are twisting the meaning of words and pretending that it makes them smart. But twisting words doesn’t make you smart, it makes you dishonest. Bible god is an evil monster, and apologists are pretending that he’s “love” and worthy of worship, and thus are forced to interpret his every horrible move as somehow being “love.” Kinda like an abused spouse.
But he’s not. He’s still an evil monster. He seeths hate. He preaches hate. He is selfish and petty. And lucky for us, there isn’t a shred of evidence that he exists.
Stay loving, my friends.
The Spartan Atheist
The Spartan Atheist 
A perfectly loving God wouldn’t be credited with giving people horrendous misfortune as part of his “plan”…
https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/
LikeLiked by 2 people
“But he’s not. He’s still an evil monster. He seeths hate. He preaches hate. He is selfish and petty. And lucky for us, there isn’t a shred of evidence that he exists.”
I like the irony in your closing statement. If He didn’t exist, why bother going through all this length of expressing your dissent over someone you say is non-existent? And your mention of “dishonesty” does not actually hold water if there is no such thing as a standard of truth. If what’s truth to some is untrue for you and vice versa, then what makes you such the authority on what IS to be considered honest?
But of course, we have every right to express ourselves, at least for now anyway. What is lucky for you is that hate speech in our society is a one way street and the street happens to be in your favor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Caeli, you said about 7 different things that are wrong, so, I’ll try a super brief response to each.
I point out how stupid religion is because there are millions of people that vote stupidly for their religious ideas, and that affects me. Further, not believing in this stupid religion can be social suicide. Its nuts. Read my “why I blog” post for more detail.
There are standards of truth. We don’t get them from a god. Nobody does.
Perfectly normalized hate speech against atheists is one reason I blog. Oprah can literally go on TV and say atheists have no moral compass, and it isn’t even considered surprising. Christians have enjoyed the unfettered ability to say whatever stupid thing they want for long enough that merely being questioned is considered an affront to decency. It’s not. Ideas must always be questioned.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What I find interesting is you invoking normalized hate speech against your group when your entire post attests to just the opposite. My comment was questioning your idea and assertions obviously.
What is mindboggling to me though is how you can possibly end with “Stay loving” when your post and your sentiment actually perpetuates hatred for a group who choose to believe in a God you assert to not exist.
Spartan, Oprah can claim to be Christian but she is not so you bringing that up is not valid. It is easy to point out “7” things you find wrong is my previous comment, but it doesn’t escape the fact that you contradict yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you are confusing a couple of things. One is people. The other is ideas. Ideas can be very stupid, and I am able… hell, I’m REQUIRED to identify stupid ideas for the safely and well being of my fellow people. Failure to identify stupid ideas is the very recipe for disasters.
And yes, Oprah is a valid point because no matter if she is a Christian or not, the Christian community agrees with her sentiment.
But I’m gonna end this line of changing the subject unless you by chance can counter my claim, that bible god is definitely not “all loving.”
Cheers. TSA
LikeLike
ヅ Smart move Spartan. I would not like to see you contradict yourself further. Let’s lay off on condescension shall we? After all, that is only a tactic used by people who really has nothing better to say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sorry, I just really don’t feel like chasing a dozen rabbits down a dozen holes right now. I wrote an article. Discuss that, or I’ll even be generous enough to let you pick one other topic. But I’m not gonna let you change the subject multiple times and waste my time. Feel free to respond with the subject you wish to pursue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ditto, friend, ditto.
LikeLike
It is easy to point out “7” things you find wrong *in my previous comment, but it doesn’t escape the fact that you contradict yourself.
Typo where the asterisk is. I sent hit without rereading.
LikeLike
A ‘loving god’ would not allow entire small nations to be destroyed and lands/humans pillaged and raped–we have been using his “commands” as an excuse to land grab, to go to war, to rape, pillage, and plunder. When you say “god ordained it” it becomes a free pass to take what you want. That’s piggy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we were to see a book of what you do in secret, can you honestly say you fit the epitome of loving perfection? Can you say you are more loving than God? And what issues do you support might I ask? To be consistent on your part, I expect abortion not to be on the list, otherwise, that already disqualifies you. The examples you used without understanding its full context is unfortunate at best.
Lastly, your reference to a ‘loving god’ is telling your denial of Him and go with the same script of “No Evidence.” Based on what you have come up with, even if evidence were to be presented to you by anyone or myself for that matter, you stand on a clouded emotional premise, so your tendency will be to reject it.
Take Care Judy.
LikeLike
Caeli, I already said right in my article that I am NOT the epitome of perfect love. But yes, even despite my faults, I’m still 1,000 times more moral than the bible god.
If I were god, and was watching a child being raped, I would intervene immediately. Your god chooses to wait.
As for evidence, please see my article on evidence, otherwise you are probably going to say stuff is evidence that just isn’t evidence.
https://thespartanatheist.wordpress.com/2018/05/04/a-word-on-evidence/
LikeLike
I was answering judyt54, Spartan.
Addresing your god complex delusion, I’m positive the percentage of the world population who do believe in God would be unanimous in debunking your claim.
I got brought back into your post by someone else so here I am, but invoking emotion to argue about God IS NOT logical. It’s emotional. People get ugly especially when they’re emotional and since you claim you are 1000 times more moral, I don’t want to be around to see when your hubris-inflated claim gets debunked by your own emotion.
Lastly, your feigned moral superiority does not fool me, nor would it any Spirit-filled believer.
Have a pleasant day.
LikeLike
Its true, you were answering Judyt54. But thanks for the response anyway.
You keep saying other people will demonstrate me wrong. By all means, go for it. The record of your god in the bible is more than enough evidence of his repugnant ways.
I have never killed anyone. Your god killed millions, many innocent children. Hell, he still kills millions today, if it is true that he still is around and in charge. So by this single data point- people killed, I’m actually millions to billions times more moral than your god.
But you claim you have some measure where I’m not. What is the measure, and what is your data?
LikeLike
You say you have never killed anyone, and yet the instance of hating someone is actually murder, but though some people like you deny God and the Bible, it does not actually annihilate their state of being.
It would be crazy even for secular people to trust anyone who says they “know” someone they do not personally know. You will not be crazy to believe someone who talks about someone claiming they have intimate details without being related to that person other than hearsay, logically speaking, but if you happen to do that, I don’t blame you. Most of society has come to believe any unreliable news source has value and is acceptable no matter what as long as it supports their view/cause.
My measure is my personal and relational experience with God, something you are devoid of. It would not surprise me one bit if you discredit it.
Would like to chat but I got things to do. I do hope that you change your mind in your own time.
Take Care Spartan
LikeLike
Caeli, you completely ignored my question, you said a bunch of random crap, and you changed the subject another half-dozen times.
I dont give a damn if you define murder as including hate or thinking stuff. Given the actual definition of murder, your god is millions of times worse. Given thinking about murder or making it possible for millions to die, your god is still millions of times worse. Given hatred of people, your god is still millions of times worse.
Given screwing with people as a game, your god is worse. Given actually showing up when you say you will, your god is worse. Given taking care of our children, your god is worse.
I am but a man, with faults and issues and limited knowledge, and yet on every measure I just mentioned, I am hundreds to millions of times better than your god. This isn’t my feelings, its a logic and math problem.
And I’m asking one last time, because my patience is wearing thin, please provide a measure by which bible god is not worse than me, or goodbye.
LikeLike
https://modconspiracy.wordpress.com/2019/01/26/facade/
LikeLike
You ignored my question again. Goodbye.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you say you are more loving than God?
Which God? Allah? Krishna? We can insert any such deity there. The point is you can’t prove God is loving at all? You would have to first prove that your God exists. Otherwise you can’t begin to prove God’s love. That’s a basic tenet of logic.
Lastly, your reference to a ‘loving god’ is telling your denial of Him and go with the same script of “No Evidence.” Based on what you have come up with, even if evidence were to be presented to you by anyone or myself for that matter, you stand on a clouded emotional premise, so your tendency will be to reject it.
This is a pure dodge and you are contradicting yourself. Later you tell SA about your “personal and relational experience with God”. What type of clouded emotional premise are you arriving from. In addition personal experience is not how we determine truth. I might just as well claim that chocolate ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream because of my experience. What I’ve said is only true for me, it doesn’t make it universally true. And even if 2 billion people thought chocolate was the best flavor that still wouldn’t make it true. If your standard of truth is your own personal experience then you are operating on far more bias than you are accusing Judy of.
Judy’s argument is not dissimilar to many people who have walked the path you walk and have come to realize it’s all nonsense. Most of have read the bible and have thought about these things long and hard. Your dismissiveness of our position seems to come from a place where you assume ignorance when it is quite the opposite. If it feels good to worship God go right ahead, but please don’t bring truth to the table unless you can demonstrate that you have some understanding how truth is derived.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What is lucky for you is that hate speech
Can you identify what you consider hate speech? Are you saying SA is using hate speech against God? God would have to be proven to exist for you to be correct. Since nobody has been able to prove the existence of God, hate speech is not a relevant argument. SA has not used hate speech against anybody existing being or group of people in his post. God is an idea. Ideas can be critiqued and should be in a free society.
Second the Bible is full of hate speech against those who do not believe in God and the consequences that God has enacted upon them or will enact upon them for not believing in His greatness. For you to even remotely argue that it’s a one way street is laughable.
And your mention of “dishonesty” does not actually hold water if there is no such thing as a standard of truth. If what’s truth to some is untrue for you and vice versa, then what makes you such the authority on what IS to be considered honest?
It would appear that your understanding of truth is quite different from others. I can quite easily demonstrate the truth of the first law of thermodynamics without needing to invoke the existence of the divine. As it turns out many things that are true are not a matter of opinion. We can prove or disprove claims based on evidence and through standards of logic. Now if you want to believe that God must exist because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to tell what is true and what is not…even if that position were logically plausible, it still wouldn’t be evidence of the existence of the Christian God, or that there was one God. There are a host of possibilities of how God or God’s might exist and still satisfy your claim.
If He didn’t exist, why bother going through all this length of expressing your dissent over someone you say is non-existent
Given the political influence of religion, Christianity particularly in the west, the fact that false beliefs are indoctrinated into children, and that there is a whole profession (apologists) designed to try to dress up logically flawed arguments to try and legitimize religious beliefs as founded in evidence and logic, I think it’s pretty reasonable to offer criticism to such a venture. Thankfully we live at a time where we don’t get burned at the stake for coming to the obvious conclusion that it’s all made up by people from a time who had very little to no explanation for the natural explanations of phenomena all around them. We live in a society where we can question religious ideas and expose the flaws in the arguments by those who claim to see things clearly. It is theism that has sought to suppress truths and oppress the people from asking question and seeking truth.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Actually, TSA invoked hate speech first here – “Perfectly normalized hate speech against atheists is one reason I blog.”
You just substantiated my questioning of TSA through your utterance of this -“Since nobody has been able to prove the existence of God, hate speech is not a relevant argument.” However, you fail to or refuse is really more accurate, to recognize the hate sentiment directed to people of faith, myself and the rest of the Christian bloggers out here. The title of the post is quite telling of the motive if I must point it to you.
“I can quite easily demonstrate the truth of the first law of thermodynamics without needing to invoke the existence of the divine.”
I’m “pretty sure” you can, just as easily as people on your side of the camp can deny and dismiss clear biological distinctions between male and female.
“It is theism that has sought to suppress truths and oppress the people from asking question and seeking truth.”
I do not deny this. Sadly, Christianity has become “the” oppressor thanks to pseudo-Christians. I don’t expect you to accept this but it IS true. Also, some people who fall in the progressive side (not sure if you associate yourself as one, but to me you could be) can easily bring the sins of the past which is pretty much an antithesis to the mode of thinking they claim to hold- move on from the past and on to the reality of the now, right?
Not balking from more exchange. Just want to tell you I am not at all intimidated but I do have duties to attend to.
Have a nice day though!
LikeLike
However, you fail to or refuse is really more accurate, to recognize the hate sentiment directed to people of faith, myself and the rest of the Christian bloggers out here. The title of the post is quite telling of the motive if I must point it to you.
Isn’t it theists though who commonly say things like hate the sin, love the sinner? Yet you seem to have a problem with hate the belief, love the believer? The fact that you take an attack on what you believe as a personal attack isn’t fair. And there is an important asymmetry in the way atheists are attacked, because we are the ones that are assumed to be without morals and who are deficient. It’s not our ideas being criticized. If somebody said they hate science, I don’t take it personally. But if I hate the concept of the Christian God this doesn’t mean I hate Christians. I don’t actually feel hate towards the concept, but I’m just saying prejudice towards those who don’t believe in God, and critiques towards the concept of there being a God aren’t equivalent.
I would love to put Christian oppression in the past, but it is still prevalent. The “no true Christian” argument isn’t really a valid one either. The pseudo-Christians call themselves Christian just as much as those of the Holy Roman empire and just as much as you. While I would agree that I would prefer the type of Christianity you seem to represent. My mother is a devout Christian and extremely kind. I am under no illusions about how kind Christians can be. But I also know how kind Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and atheists can be. But going back to Christianity, old testament thinking still exists in our justice system, the evangelicals still have enormous lobbying power and political influence, and mini theocracies at the state level exist in the U.S. That oppression is not a thing of the past and the flag they fly is a Christian one. Whether you don’t think they are true Christians is irrelevant. They will cherry pick the parts of scripture that support their views just as it has been done to support segregation, slavery, witch burning etc. The bible has a wide range of passages from kindness to cruelty in the name of God. That’s a problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also:
I’m “pretty sure” you can, just as easily as people on your side of the camp can deny and dismiss clear biological distinctions between male and female.
I assume you are talking about transgender people. You are aware that biological sex and gender are different right?
LikeLike
Hmm, this would prove to be a dilemma for an Atheist really, what you said, since they believe they evolved from animals, the biological sex, male and female, reigns supreme over preferences and perception.
LikeLike
Not really…since gender identity is different than biological sex. One can still evolve from male/female species biologically, but in terms of how we identify our gender socially this can be different since gender is a social construct. So no, no dilemmas here.
LikeLike
“One can still evolve from male/female species biologically”
Right. I will expect an evolved transgender elephant maybe next year or a transgender ape a millions of years from now? But then again, that would not be observable would it?
You can reconcile it all you want. People say everything is a construct nowadays but things just have an ironic way of debunking such notions. You are entitled to them as I am entitled to my beliefs.
You can win this one Swarn. Apparently, it will bruise your ego more than it will bruise mine.
Happy Friday!
LikeLike
LOL…because you don’t understand the difference between gender and biological sex. I’ve apparently lost this argument…at least according to your patronizing tone.
In addition, if you see something as impacting 0.5% of the human population as not a possibility of a naturally occurring phenomena in a complex social species, you really don’t understand how evolution works.
There is no bruised ego here, because you’ve not presented any convincing argument for your case. Your best argument appears to be from a lack of understanding.
Science has a long way to go on understanding transgenderism, but if you think that it’s an evolutionary impossibility you would simply be mistaken. You can do the research yourself, but you seem relegated to sources which simply confirm your theistic and simplistic view of human sexuality and gender identity.
What I believe is that this world is too complex for me rule out the possibility that what we thought we knew before isn’t true today. I don’t have beliefs about transgenderism, I simply seem people who experience gender differently than I do, and I accept them for who they are. They aren’t harming anybody, and kindness and acceptance are the best path to give individuals their best chance to flourish and have self-determination. I will accept what science finds when it finds it. I don’t need belief about gender and human sexuality to get me through the day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“LOL…because you don’t understand the difference between gender and biological sex. I’ve apparently lost this argument…at least according to your patronizing tone.”
How old are you? Teens? Early 20’s? I am deemed to have a patronizing tone by you because I have just disproven your assertion which cannot be scientifically observable because evolution NEEDS time in order for it to be substantiated – first example I threw in, the trans elephant disqualifies your view because it doesn’t meet the time needed to be considered as evolved considering Darwin’s speculation. About the ape- you’d be loooong dead to even be able to say to someone, “I told you so.” You threw your assertion without thinking about the time criteria sophomorically.
Sex and Gender still mean the same. It ALWAYS meant classification (you conflate identity/perception with reality) until the new generation who have reduced real dinstinctions to mere constructs have been indoctrinated so well to think they- out of ALL the generations of the world, hold supreme beliefs over those before them- hubris. Really.
“I simply seem people who experience gender differently than I do, and I accept them for who they are. They aren’t harming anybody.”
You can keep believing that and you’re entitled to, but that does not make you right. Also, with you having a problem about OT standards, or any standard for that matter, you should not have a problem when you find out that subjective “morality” applies to ALL beliefs across the board. You seem to be intolerant to Christianity even though you claim to be “objective.” It doesn’t fool me.
I do not intend to “lecture” you on what to believe. I think you have your devout Christian mother for that. The only reason I replied to you is because I know it sucks for one to take their time to type in their thoughts only to be ignored.
Take Care Swarn.
LikeLike
You haven’t disproved anything? You haven’t presented proof of any kind. Your example of a trans-elephant…if you think that is a winning you don’t understand evolution. Your patronizing tone wasn’t in the strength of your argument but in your “I’ll let you win this one..” crap. That’s patronizing and you know it.
Sex and gender’s were always classification. Nobody is arguing otherwise. Only that gender identity doesn’t always match biological sex. I can treat a trandgendered person as the gender they identify with, it doesn’t change the reality of their biological sex. Nobody argues otherwise. If they want to reproduce obviously that’s the most important aspect. It’s fun how you mischaracterize the argument being made simply to attack it. That’s the strawman fallacy, should you be interested in learning one of the many common logical fallacies you commit.
Christians are just as subjective as any atheist. It’s easy to fool yourself otherwise. The many Christian denominations is as good example of any how subjective interpretations lead to a different set of beliefs. The fact that you think atheists have no standards for morality shows your ignorance about how morality works. Your morality is dictated by authority and therefore doesn’t represent any sort of reasoned approach to the consequences of your actions. You’ve a priori assumed that God exists and that it represents an objective standard. Yet this God remains to be proven to even exist, even it did you’d still be making assumptions, as you do about God’s character that convinces you that it has rules that you should follow. Your entire foundation is built on belief. And if belief is the definer of reality, then any belief is possibly true. That’s where subjectivity is dangerous. Because reality is subject to the believer.
Rather if we use reason and study individual and group behaviour to see what outcomes maximize human flourishing we have much better grounds for identifying moral behaviors than ceding authority to invisible divine forces.
I’ll leave these here with you. I doubt you’ll watch them, but it explains how obviously morality without God makes far more sense and is a far better way to build a moral society than the religious authoritarianism that you adhere to.
I’ve visited your blog and read some of your posts. There is no doubt in my mind that you are brainwashed and verging on conspiracy theory thinking in a lot of what you write. It’s not surprising that you have only researched in a way that supports what you already believe to be true. You spend a lot of time complaining about how un-believers don’t know God like you do. Even if that were true (I mean anybody can claim to know an invisible better than someone else), what’s clear is you don’t understand in the least the opposing arguments to your belief. You don’t understand how people arrived at those opposing arguments and that your best tool is belittling others. While you claim persecution by Spartan Atheist’s comments, you are no less vitriolic in your rhetoric about people who hold worldviews different than your own. At least from your writing there are far better examples of Christianity than what you represent. Your story of your conversion reveals someone who just as much awash in the need to believe in something solid than to embrace the uncertainty and impermanence that is life. It’s clear that it was an emotional transformation and I am glad your being born again has brought you happiness. But please don’t fool yourself into thinking that such an experience makes you knowledgeable about how truth is actually derived and how logical arguments are made. Your need for your own beliefs to define reality is immense because of an emotional void, not an intellectual one.
Good luck to you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Your need for your own beliefs to define reality is immense because of an emotional void, not an intellectual one.”
Such strong emotion there Swarn. I have not made an assertion whatsoever about my conversion being intellectual. I have countered your assertions here without the mention of God since I know you don’t believe in Him but as you constantly assert your intellectual prowess, you keep disappointing me by reverting to an emotional argument rather than intellectual, and now, you are stooping to an ad hominem attack invoking my testimony.
As I have said before, it is quite predictable. I keep saying you are entitled to hold to your beliefs even when clearly, you can’t defend them on your own merit that you have to send me over to some youtube vid to have your “intellect” substantiated for you by someone else.
Also, it amazes me how easily you can eat your words to say you prefer my view of Christianity to now attack me. It is quite a proven winning strategy, isn’t it?
I don’t need luck Swarn. Since you don’t believe in God, it is pretty clear you need it more than I do.
Peace out and no hard feelings.
LikeLike
Hi, Caeli. I’ve been ignoring you because of the typical random shotgun blast of bullshit that usually accompanies religious arguments has bore out in your comments. So, please if you will, stick to one thing at a time. My article was about bible god being a prick, which completely is at odds with any meaning whatsoever with the idea of “perfect love.” We can discuss that issue, or maybe another issue. But if you keep changing the subject we get nowhere.
Anyway, just thought I’d try to reign things in. If you wanna just continue to spew random crap at crazy speed, I’ll once again say goodbye.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@SpartanAtheist Hi, Caeli. I’ve been ignoring you because of the typical random shotgun blast of bullshit that usually accompanies religious arguments has bore out in your comments. So, please if you will, stick to one thing at a time.
It really does sound as if Caeli wants a dialogue, she wants a place on the troll team. I’m not sure she even knows HOW to respond, since she has an agenda strictly her own. A message, if you will, for us poor lost souls…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“And no, he didn’t “love us so much he gave his only son”, he despises us so much that he couldn’t bring himself to forgiving us for something we did not do. ”
Amen to that, and I never thought about it that way. Why punish future generations for something they never did? Even the original ‘sinners’ didn’t really do anything but get set up to fail. I too am glad this God doesn’t exist.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yeah, there are a million things wrong with the Adam and Eve story. It’s just too stupid to rectify.
LikeLiked by 1 person
if it could be perceived as the metaphor that it is, life would be simpler. We don’t try to squash holy rites into Cinderella, or Snow White, they send kids a message about right and wrong, about greed, about bad behavior and good. Most if not all of the stories in the bible are not meant, I believe, to be treated as reality, but as cautionary tales, or primitive man’s view of how the earth started, or changed, or evolved. Easy to forget that every damn culture out there has a creation myth, an Adam story, on and on.
How arrogant to say that ‘our” religion is the only true one.
LikeLiked by 3 people
God has ordered the death of millions, but god is love, he works in mysterious ways, he has a plan for all of us, he helps some people find their keys if they pray, he makes certain football teams win, he allows about 9 million people to starve to death every year worldwide, 95,000 children are murdered worldwide a year, but god is love. Give me a break!
https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
LikeLiked by 3 people
you know, I just realized: a wife is married to a man who regularly wallops her. She can’t get away, so she has mentally adjusted herself to accept this as normal. ‘But I love him so much…he cant help himself…” and if he beats her it’s always her fault. Sound like our loving god and his followers?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. Abused spouse syndrome, all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
God (the writers) of love is the same standard used by dead-beat dads that think they are good parents. Creating something doesn’t make you good, and god creating us has somehow made Christianity assume he must be “all good and love” because he has the final say, so he has to be love. Why? What we observe is certainly different from what we are told. I’m going to trust my own eyes. Btw, the writers certainly were neglected growing up. Everyone needs someone to care. They made their god super caring and loving…and punitive…like an alcoholic spousal abuse kinda love.
LikeLiked by 2 people
God allowed the systemic sexual abuse of children by the churches. So much for either a moral, or interventionist god. One genuine miraculous intervention — involving rescuing angels; or priests spontaneously struck down by indoor bolts of lightning — might have done the trick, and worked wonders for instant converts to the faith. But no. Zilch. Nada. Bible god doesn’t care, or — more likely — he’s simply not there. Not a good look for a god who’s credited with creating a universe.
Yeah, yeah: “free will”, and all that. Shove it. Bible god needs to get his priorities straight when it comes to protecting the kids. Fortunately, ethical minded men and women are more constructive and powerful than senescent, ineffectual Bible god, and secular morality and laws — despite flaws — have proved to be more capable than anything religion can offer.
We’re living in a transitional moment in the West, watching the decline of obsolete Bible-based morality take place within our life-spans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, the same god that was willing to change a Pharoah’s mind by force just to build up a story and kill lots of people… is suddenly super concerned about free will so much that he won’t help a child being raped?
That’s why we don’t believe. Because it’s nonsense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And once you’ve seen the man behind the curtain, the little guy with the big megaphone, you can never see him as you thought he was. Oz becomes a house of cards.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank Dog for the Toto’s of the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As awful (at least to me) as the book was, and as awful as the movie was (and it was truly dreadful) when I see it now (but only sideways, it makes my eyes water) I keep thinking, this comes across, 70-80 years later, as a well hidden steaming pile of metaphor but it’s not clear what it might have been. It makes me itch to watch. =) I did fall in love with Bert Lahr…
LikeLike
People who blaspheme GOD is consider as less intelligent as they cannot able to understand the omniscient and all merciful GOD. These people are such a rascal who are just interested to find faults in others they don’t have anybrains to see the good qualities in GOD. GOD Jehavo gave 10 commandments to those people who are like animals. First of all you people follow the 10 commandments and then only you can understand GOD and his qualities. If you people remain like animals enjoying without any discrimination then what is the difference between DOG and humanbeings.
Why such people like to blaspheme or deny the existence of GOD? Because they want to enjoy life without any discrimination like cats and dogs. What happened to karl marx, joseph stallin and adolf hitler they are destroyed by their own sinful acts so atheism leds to destruction and inhalation only. Atheists people speak about love these people cannot understand the difference between lust and attachment. Mother showing her love towards her child is not love it is bodily attachment because such love is reciprocated towards her child only she cannot exhibit such love towards every child. Similarly marriage is nothing but lisenced restricted sex life towards his or her spous this is also attachment and lust, sex life outside the marriage is sinful and prohibited as per bible. Our so called love in this world is defective and is not complete because we love our fellow man but not our fellow animals. Jeasus Christ says THOU SHALL NOT KILL but such people are maintaining huge slaughter houses. LOVE of GOD is like sun just like a sun distributing its heat and light to everybody without any discrimination similarly GODS Love to us is without any discrimination. It is not that GOD should satisfy our bad desires just like for eg: a son goes to his father and asks his father that he wants to drink liquor if the father really loves his son he will chastise his son for his bad habits and punishes him for his future prospects similarly, GOD sometimes shall not answer our prayers and sometimes he punishes us to make us good child. A government keeps prison not only to punish the criminals but to reform them an make them as good citizens. Similarly, we are criminals as we do not follow the instructions of GOD and his SON. As per laws of the state a criminal should be punished eventhough he confesses his wrong similarly one may be very good person in his present life in the eyes of people but according to his past sinful deeds in previous life he must suffer the reactions in his present life this is the judgement of GOD. There may be many false versions of bible now due to the passage of time but the life lead by original 12 apostles is pure and their instructions has to be followed by us. One cannot imitate GOD and Lord Jeasus Christ. A sun can evaporate the urine and still it remains pure but we cannot go and lickt the urine we will be contaminated.
Therefore anybody who blasphemes GOD and his devotees are fools and rascals. Atheists say that unless I see god I will not believe first of all what is your qualification to see GOD. Even if GOD appears before you How can you identify him? what you speak of seeing GOD you people cannot even see and understand the vastness of this universe. Scientists are just speculating about the space and foolish people believe in their bluff. People believe in Big Bang theory have they seen the Big Bang? Will anything be created from bomb blast? But they will not believe in the words of GOD that GOD created heaven and earth in 6 of his days. Where from the inertia, centrifugaland centripetal force is coming? If atheist says chance would have done it then, it is absolutely nonsense. If you people believe in big bang then such kind of belief is also religion because it is not scientific. Science means it should be observable and testable for many years.
LikeLike
Your ignorance is astounding. I don’t even know where to begin!
LikeLike
Brother, try to understand what I had told, a real atheist shall win his belief by scientific reasoning he never blindly concludes others as ignorant.
LikeLike
Arun, if you say something that demonstrates you are entirely clueless of the subject material, that is, by definition, ignorance.
It doesn’t mean I’m calling you a name, or insulting your intelligence. It means you know very little to none about this subject. Very intelligent people can be ignorant of some things.
You are completely ignorant of science, clearly. This isn’t meant as an insult. Im telling you you are ignorant in the hopes that you will spend some time learning about science so someday in the future we can have a conversation about it. But right now I just can’t. It would be pointless.
LikeLike
Brother, I am just considering me as servant of GOD and we accept no conditioned human beings including myself as perfect. I heard and understood some scientific conclusions from top scientists like professor Dr.Ae.Wilder smith and heard about the complexity of DNA Structure and professor Dr. Michal bhee of Lehi university had published “”Darvins black box a bio chemical challenge to the Darvins evolution””. So I request you brother to kindly go through those books. Professor behee says a cell is irreducibly complex and it could not be evolved by gradual steps of evolution as darvin imagined. He demonstrated this fact by pointing out an example of mouse trap, where such mouse trap cannot function unless all the parts exactly were in place. He showed the picture of bacteria flagellum which has all the suffisticated machine parts like a onboard motor, lever, rotor and a shaft.
I just conclude by saying only one thing brother everything in this world is temporary including our material bodies so our aim of life is to get out from the bondage of birth and death. Material life is suffering and painful and it could not be changed by artificial human efforts. Everybody is poor. Poor means everybody is in need of real love but the fact in this material world is that the so called love we experience in this world is of diminishing nature. This is what we call as illution or that which is not. Everybody is pleasure seeking because that is the nature of spirit soul or living force but due to lack of spiritual knowledge everybody is trying to extract pleasure from dead matter. For eg\: people love mobile phones and suffisticated cars than humans, people use humans for getting dead things. Therefore the pleasure derived from such dead things is flickering and they are not satisfied, due to dissatisfaction they change things which they say as advancement of world. Such foolish people are proud by making changes to dead things and call them as advancement of civilization. Nobody knows real pleasure can be attained only when we develop eternal relationship with supreme eternal self sufficient GOD who is omniscient, omnipotent and all merciful. So Lord Jeasus Christ who is Son Of GOD the SAVIOR descends down to this material world to save us from miserable condition. Inorder to create faith in GOD and to understand his almighty position he showed some mystic powers to those people but people of those days where so ignorant they crucified him. when Jeasus Christ was physically tortured and put into cross he said to GOD oh lord please forgive them for their ignorance and I will accept all their sins. So that is the greatness of Lord Jeasus Christ a great devotee of the lord. Suppose if someone had done any crime or wrong will we accept punishment for him?. Christ says that real happiness is in the kingdom of eternal GOD such happiness is not satiating. You speak of love but see the love shown by Lord Jeasus Christ. people at that time was envious of Christ they want to kill Christ but inspite of all insults, humiliation, hunger and thirst Jeasus Christ voluntarily accepted suffering and showed love and mercy to such cruel people.
Yours well wisher
LikeLike
Arun, so some of your scientific knowledge is “only” 30 years behind. Stay thirsty for knowledge, my friend. Don’t stop when it feels good, stop when it is demonstrable and well researched.
LikeLike