The absurdity of Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

if early humans were meant to breed for whatever such aliens purposed for them - it wold explain why they weren't too keen on homosexuality or other diversities but preferred folk to have as many kids as possible.

Well, the Old Testament as we know it was written in the Iron Age.
It as a time of very high infant mortality and military unrest in the Levant (and not just there). Human populations needed a lot of babies to survive.

But the ancient Indian and Chinese religiuos scriptures were written around the same time.

... and they didn't have the same problem with homosexuality as the Abrahamic religions do.

Why do human beings choose to be destructive when we could just as easily choose gratitude?

... the Old Testament as we know it was written in the Iron Age.  It was a time of very high infant mortality and military unrest in the Levant (and not just there).  Human populations needed a lot of babies to survive.

My apologies for the late response.

According to Christianity, God created humans. Then God got angry at the humans for being the way he created them, and decided they all should be sadistically tortured in Hell for all of eternity. But God loves the humans that he decided deserve eternal damnation for the crime of existing the way he made them. The problem is that God arbitrarily made up some unnecessary rule that he couldn't forgive the humans without a blood sacrifice. So he constructed a convoluted plot to reincarnate himself as his own son by impregnating a woman with himself so that he can sacrifice himself to himself to act as a loophole within the rules that he himself made up to begin with.

None of this sh!t makes any f**king sense!

As you can see, it is the narrative of Christianity itself that is absurd, and not anything to do with the actions of Christians.

I question if you even bothered to read the OP before posting. Saying that I'm pointing to hypocrites to judge the religion itself is just a pathetic attempt at a strawman.

Why do human beings choose to be destructive when we could just as easily choose gratitude?

If I build a dollhouse for my daughter’s birthday and it collapses into a pile of tinder on the very first day she plays with it, it would be foolish for me to get upset with the dollhouse. The fault here lies with my sub-standard building skills – it’s certainly not the dollhouse’s fault.

On the other hand, if my daughter begged me to build her a dollhouse, over my objections that I have no carpentry skills, that would be different. If I told her that anything I try to build would have a lifespan of minutes before falling apart…but she insisted, whose fault is it now?

But AFAIK the human race didn't push God into creating them.

Indeed it's hard to know how they could have done that...

...when they didn't exist.

A popular belief, but one I don't ascribe to.



Agreed; it is hard.



Yes, holding such a perspective - which again, is completely reasonable and held by a great number of people, would seem to make the whole matter impossible. I however, do not agree that humans didn't exist...sort of. From my perspective, humans didn't exist in their current corporeal form, but they did exist.

Consider this please... Actually, before I say this, let me be clear. I am asking you to consider something - not to agree with me, but only to understand what I am saying. I have heard a sculptor describe his method thusly, "I sit in front of the marble until I see the form that it is hiding within, and then chip away at the parts that obscure that vision." It's difficult for me to wrap my head around such thinking but creative types tend to scramble my brain anyway. If there is a God who is responsible for the Universe and everything in it, including humans, then He would certainly qualify as a 'creative type'.

Consider this forum. I am part of the WP-community. Before I was part of this community, I expressed a willingness to become part of this community to the creator of the forum (via their 'create an account' feature) and presto-chango, I'm a WP member. Before I became a WP member, I existed. Likewise, I don't find it illogical to consider the possibility that before I became a member of the human race, I existed.

^
So you're saying that people existed before they really existed as we know it, in God's imagination, and in that imaginary form we put pressure on him to create us, and we didn't give him enough time, so he went and botched it, which was all our fault? I don't see how. The explanation is as absurd as the thing you're trying to show the sense of.

False dilemma. You’ve never demonstrated that genocide actually happened or that what God commanded even qualifies as genocide. You haven’t proven that God is evil. All you’re doing is assuming those things, so it’s unreasonable from the outset. You haven’t proven that anything in the Bible is false. It’s logically possible that the Bible is not false and that God is good. It is NOT logically possible that God could be evil. If God is not evil, nothing he commands can be evil.

The assertion that “God commands genocide” assumes the Evil God. However, the problem of assigning good or evil to anything also assumes a standard by which something might be said to be good or evil. Assigning good or evil to something based on human experience assumes that human beings know good from evil. Human standards for good and evil outside of divine revelation are dynamic and even fickle. People in recent times who actually DO commit genocide certainly don’t believe what they are doing to be evil. Hitler thought he was doing Germany the greatest good from kristallnacht forward. So who is evil? Hitler? Or everyone else? Is it just the winners who are good? If the NAZIs had won, would that have made them good? Ancient Rome did some pretty atrocious stuff. Were they evil? On the other hand, they governed and protected all of the known civilized world at that time. So...they were good? Or is good just whatever I feel it is? There is no consistent, purely secular standard for good and evil. It doesn’t exist in any meaningful form.

If there is an absolute standard, such as murder being pretty much universally understood as evil, how can human beings know what that is? If human beings can only partially know objective, absolute good/evil, is there a way to know more than what we already do? Is there a reliable source for understanding good/evil in absolute terms? Well, the only way anyone can know good and evil in absolute terms is by being omniscient. Human beings are not omniscient and thus incapable of fully understanding good and evil. God is omniscient and does know in absolute terms what good is.

Since God is not evil, what he commands can only be good. So...genocide is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, nothing that qualifies as actual genocide was even carried out in the Bible by anyone chosen by God. There’s no reason to conclude that God commanded genocide, and what we’re left with is the ASSUMPTION that he did. So if the assumption for the sake of argument, however unlikely, is that genocide is what was intended, then it follows that God only being good could not have committed evil by commanding it—genocide by itself is neither inherently good nor evil. I’m not saying that genocide is good necessarily, only that if we assume genocide is evil that it is only contingently evil. If God knows a race of people to be so evil as to be irredeemable and to have forfeited their right to exist, it is God’s prerogative to wipe them out completely. If we are only God’s playthings, it is improper to presume to tell God what he can or cannot do with us.

On the other hand...

Because God is not evil and does not give evil commands, adding the assumption that we can know with certainty that genocide is evil (for the sake of argument), then it follows that God didn’t command genocide.

Either genocide under God’s direction is not evil, or what God commanded (assuming genocide is evil) was not genocide. Either conclusion would be reasonable. How one proceeds to take the argument from there will likely follow a modern bias against genocide. I don’t see the conquest of Canaan as genocide, but neither do I ASSUME that anything God does is evil simply because many people in the world feel so strongly about it.

The idea of OT genocide is settled. Anything else I’d add to the discussion on that was already mentioned in a previous post.