evil God?

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m not the hedonistic moral coward here. I hope there is a final judgement just as Jesus spoke of, with the sheep and the goats, and I hope that the oppressed, the poor, the disabled, the gay are your accusers against you and your church; you deserve no less; you cloak your fear and insecurity in religious piety instead of embracing an ethic of radical solidarity with the other (which is necessary for real love), because that would involve genuine humility and openness instead of what is at the ugly heart of every religious impulse; control and manipulation.

Do you believe in objective moral truth? If not, then why do you think that anything you have said here has any relevance to moral truth? Yes, religion can be used for evil. You have not demonstrated however that religion is evil. Rather you have only demonstrated how you prefer to view religion. On top of that most of everything you have said is simply a straw-man of Christianity. Sure, Christianity has been used by the oppressors of the world to encourage silence and conformity in the face of great evils perpetrated by governments. Christianity has also been used to promote and inspire human dignity, human charity, humanity towards one another, and even revolution for the sake of the poor. It seems that you cherry pick what suites you and ignore the great good that Christianity has done in the world.

Since that is your attitude, what you have to say about Christianity cannot be trusted as being anything more than a perverse humanistic fantasy. Its just hypocrisy.

What do you have to console mankind? Meaninglessness posing as true meaning, humanistic fantasy posing as reality, and inevitably eternal nothingness as the fulfilling end of a deluded existence.

You want moral glory without a moral law giver; you want a universe without a cause. You want to be the God of your own meaning. What better joy than to find out that God is evil.

Surprise surprise.

I apologise if don’t feel moved to applaud you.

 

[tonyrey]

Irrelevant.

You don’t get the point. You blame God for bringing people into the world knowing they will commit crimes but you don’t blame people for bringing people into the world knowing they will commit crimes. How inconsistent can you get?

I’m not the hedonistic moral coward here. I hope there is a final judgement just as Jesus spoke of, with the sheep and the goats, and I hope that the oppressed, the poor, the disabled, the gay are your accusers against you and your church; you deserve no less; you cloak your fear and insecurity in religious piety instead of embracing an ethic of radical solidarity with the other (which is necessary for real love), because that would involve genuine humility and openness instead of what is at the ugly heart of every religious impulse; control and manipulation.

You cloak your fear and insecurity with aggressive attacks on religious people who have done far more to help the poor and afflicted than cynical atheists who can only drive others to despair and suicide with their philosophy of despair that everything is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless - and their fine words conceal the absurdity and hollowness of their claims of “radical solidarity” and “real love” which are exposed by their futile attempts to control, manipulate and undermine the faith of those who believe love is not a superstitious myth but the fundamental Reality. Sparks in the dark are not capable of anything because they are mindless permutations of amoral, insignificant molecules which just happen to exist for no reason whatsoever - let alone “radical solidarity” and “real love”… In reality you believe only the evidence of what you see, hear, taste, smell and touch - as if that tells you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you, the blind goddess: Chance!

 

[Daedelus76]

Do you believe in objective moral truth? If not, then why do you think that anything you have said here has any relevance to moral truth?

I believe we should act from our hearts. I say the bodhisattva vows every day, that is where I hang my hat. I don’t care about philosophically speculative masturbation like “absolute moral truth”, I care about people that suffer and religious rationalizations for God’s silence angers me.

Christianity has also been used to promote and inspire human dignity, human charity, humanity towards one another, and even revolution for the sake of the poor. It seems that you cherry pick what suites you and ignore the great good that Christianity has done in the world.

Are you saying we should blame parents for creating kids, and not God? Then in what sense is God the Creator of any of us?

 

[hiinEnkelte]

No I don’t. But why does what the majority of parents think have to do with being a guide to truth? Appeal to consensus is a fallacy.

If God abandoned Jesus, he could abandon any of us. If God abandoned a good person like Jesus for a morning why wouldn’t he abandon you or me for eternity… on less warrant? Christians can’t step outside their myths and stories and see how genuinely repulsive they can be. Why worship a cosmic child abuser that loves hurting people?

Legitimizing suffering is part of the problem; it hardens peoples hearts against actually doing something and is moral nihilism, not moral progress (or worse, it sentimentalizes away peoples real needs in favor of religious platitudes, “The poor will always be with you”.). And this is what Christianity’s view of the Cross does, it’s a legitimization of violence and indifference to suffering. " If Jesus could “man up” and take God’s wrath, surely you, the oppressed, the poor, the marginalized, can do the same? Quit whining about injustice and just take it like Jesus" It’s hate bottled as fluffy love. This is what I hate. You take the words of a man that pronounced woes upon the rich and powerful and you create a mythology around him to justify your authority, so that you can then use it to human, temporal ends. To tell the oppressed to sit at the back of the bus and never speak up, never demand more; to be good little serfs and fit into the Chain of Being and hope for the Pie in the Sky… Hell on Earth is justified by your Heaven.

I’m not the hedonistic moral coward here. I hope there is a final judgement just as Jesus spoke of, with the sheep and the goats, and I hope that the oppressed, the poor, the disabled, the gay are your accusers against you and your church; you deserve no less; you cloak your fear and insecurity in religious piety instead of embracing an ethic of radical solidarity with the other (which is necessary for real love), because that would involve genuine humility and openness instead of what is at the ugly heart of every religious impulse; control and manipulation.

“If God abandoned Jesus, he could abandon any of us. If God abandoned a good person like Jesus for a morning why wouldn’t he abandon you or me for eternity… on less warrant?”

Jesus will not abandon you. Hebrews 13:5

“Christians can’t step outside their myths and stories and see how genuinely repulsive they can be.”



“You take the words of a man that pronounced woes upon the rich and powerful and you create a mythology around him to justify your authority.”

Please don’t beg the question–after all, we are in a philosophy forum. In such a discussion, I believe it is helpful for someone like yourself to assume Christianity is correct for the sake of argument.

" To tell the oppressed to sit at the back of the bus and never speak up, never demand more; to be good little serfs and fit into the Chain of Being and hope for the Pie in the Sky… Hell on Earth is justified by your Heaven."

Please. Jesus cleaned house in the Temple. Secondly, don’t forget the Christian soldier of the medieval times. At times the Christian is meek; at times he is righteously angry. The Catholic Church, to paraphrase Chesterton, likes to have a vibrant amount of both white and red, she has just always had a healthy hatred of pink. Perhaps Christianity is too paradoxical for you? You know you are not obliged to have an opinion about what you do not understand. Just sayin’.

“I hope there is a final judgement just as Jesus spoke of, with the sheep and the goats, and I hope that the oppressed, the poor, the disabled, the gay are your accusers against you and your church; you deserve no less.”

 

[tonyrey]

Are you saying we should blame parents for creating kids, and not God? Then in what sense is God the Creator of any of us?

I’m saying we should blame you for expecting to have everything for precisely nothing - and making absurd objections to the fact that God has created us knowing evil is the inevitable price of free will…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I believe we should act from our hearts.

I don’t know what “you” mean by that. What is a heart that we should act upon it? I presume you mean act according to what feels right. But who are you to assume that Christians don’t act from their heart, or anyone for-that-matter. People often act from their heart and end up doing evil anyway, so that alone doesn’t seem like a good standard for building a better world. You still haven’t really proven why you think that your finite arrogant mind is fit to make an absolute judgement of Gods behaviour.

Right, that’s why the Vatican hasn’t even beatified Oscar Romero (someone I genuinely respect)…

I don’t know Oscar Romero. But what I do know is that people are not beatified simply because they have done good; it involves more than that. You misunderstand what it means to be classed as a saint.

even though he has a statue and calendar day in the Anglican Church.

I am sure that if he were truly a saint he would prefer less than that; and in fact he would probably feel embarrassed by the idea of having a statue. No good person is really interested in accolades for good behaviour. Good is what we are supposed to be doing.

Instead Mother Theresa, a woman who is the epitome of sentimentalizing poverty, is on the fast track.

You are just making assertions here. I think you are making a straw-man about something that you don’t really understand and do not care to understand otherwise. Far be it from me to say that a saint is perfect, because that is not the true definition of a saintly life. What I am more interested in is what did she do to further the Catholic Faith.

Yet Oscar Romero actually did more to fight for the rights of poor people, whereas Mother Theresa viewed them as a stepping stone to holiness and Jesus. Which one has more genuine love for the poor, and which one was in love with their own feelings of piety?

Which one is a false representation of a saint.

I think its possible for consciousness to continue after death or any number of things, and Roman Catholicism to have many errors.

The secular possibility of error is not evidence of it.

Its not all or nothing.

According to you.

We can have hope that there is no final answer on existence, there’s a mystery at the heart of life. No absolute certain answer is needed.

You mean that “you” don’t want answers that do not coincide with “your” agenda.

'm not some kind of cold humanist.

You don’t need to be in-order to make sweeping generalisations and fallacious misrepresentations about what the Catholic faith actually teaches about the poor.

I’m simply embracing a healthy skepticism,

Which is simply to be sceptical of anything that doesn’t fit with how you want to view the world. That’s not real scepticism. If you were truly a sceptic you would merit the possibility that God has designs beyond our understanding. You would also be sceptical of your finite minds ability to really judge God in the absolute manner you have been presenting here.

just like Socrates thousands of years ago. Like Socrates said, after you die if you live a good life you either go live with the gods and heroes, or you sleep… and who doesn’t like a good sleep?

I do. But I don’t want to cease to exist, and nobody who values life does either. Any sane person who is truly honest about that possibility would not be happy about it.

Are you saying we should blame parents for creating kids, and not God? Then in what sense is God the Creator of any of us?

But if you don’t blame your parents, this would suggest that you don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with bringing people in to a world of potential suffering.

 

[tonyrey]

But if you don’t blame your parents, this would suggest that you don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with bringing people in to a world of potential suffering.

A beautiful example of inconsistency based on - and motivated by the desire for - a preconceived conclusion!

 

[Daedelus76]

Perhaps Christianity is too paradoxical for you? You know you are not obliged to have an opinion about what you do not understand. Just sayin’.

I’m OK with paradox to some extent… but I don’t think that’s how I see Catholicism and Christianity. I see it as demonizing and villifying the anger of the victim and using Jesus as a foil. It’s my right to be angry- my anger is legitimate. It doesn’t make me an evil persons or a sinner to feel this way about my situation or the situation of other people. I’ve had alot of people tell me I just needed to be more humble and trust the Church more (the Orthodox Church, I was in the OCA until I finally had enough of that and deconverted). Well, eventually I just snapped and it made me physically ill. I’m only starting to heal now, the first bit is to realize I’m not a doormat, and I’m not a bad person or a sinner that needs spiritual help for things I shouldn’t feel bad at all about.

But who are you to assume that Christians don’t act from their heart, or anyone for-that-matter. People often act from their heart and end up doing evil anyway,.

Our conscience needs to be informed by reason and experience (including science, which is why I reject the idea that homosexuality is a sin). But I’d put following your heart as the most important thing because I believe people in western culture devalue intuition, especially religious people. If it feels wrong it probably is wrong and we don’t need to rationalize it away.

I don’t know Oscar Romero. But what I do know is that people are not beatified simply because they have done good; it involves more than that. You misunderstand what it means to be classed as a saint.

Oscar Romero was archbishop of El Salvador and he was killed decades by American-funded paramilitaries; while reading the passage in the Gospel of John about a seed falling to the ground and dying, troops broke into the church and gunned him down with assault rifles. He had become increasingly aware of the brutality of the Salvadorean regime in trying to repress the calls for social justice in El Salvador, and the complacency of the Catholic Church there, and had begun to speak out of it openly and encourage disobedience and non-cooperation with the regime. The rumor is that the Vatican will never beatify Oscar Romero because it would offend powerful people in El Salvador. On the contrary, your current Pope at this time was busy witch-hunting liberation theologians and liberal theology. As I said though, he has a statue in London and calendar days in the Anglican world.

I am sure that if he were truly a saint he would prefer less than that; and in fact he would probably feel embarrassed by the idea of having a statue. No good person is really interested in accolades for good behaviour. Good is what we are supposed to be doing.

We need statues of people like Oscar Romero to remind us of what goodness looks like.

Which is simply to be sceptical of anything that doesn’t fit with how you want to view the world. That’s not real scepticism. If you were truly a sceptic you would merit the possibility that God has designs beyond our understanding. You would also be sceptical of your finite minds ability to really judge God in the absolute manner you have been presenting here.

Of course, I’m skeptical which means I don’t know for certain, but neither do you. And i find it unlikely that Roman Catholic understanding of God is the “One, True Faith”. If God is beyond my understanding he’s probably also beyond the Pope’s understanding.

 

[tonyrey]

If God is beyond my understanding he’s probably also beyond the Pope’s understanding.

God is beyond everyone’s understanding but some are closer to God than others…

 

[Daedelus76]

God is beyond everyone’s understanding but some are closer to God than others…

Nonsequitur. How can one be closer to an omnipresent being? Anyways, to be more explicit: I doubt the Pope is any closer to absolute truth than you or me.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Daedelus
**
No I don’t. But why does what the majority of parents think have to do with being a guide to truth? Appeal to consensus is a fallacy.**

Appeal to consensus is not a fallacy, unless the consensus is a false consensus.

Get your fallacies straight in your head.

If the consensus of astronomers is that the universe is umpteen billion years old, that is not a fallacy. It is an estimate based upon rational scientific research. However, the consensus could be wrong and even changed considerably if new information came to light as to how old the universe might be.

If the consensus of the human race is that sodomy is morally wrong and repulsive, that is not a fallacy. It is a fact based upon reasonable analysis of the act and its consequences.

If the vast majority of mankind believe in supernatural powers, that is an indication of a profound and natural intuition that most humans share. The reason they share it is not in and of itself a fallacy, but rather points to the distinct possibility that it is true, even if it is not immediately demonstrable to the senses.

 

[Daedelus76]

If the consensus of the human race is that sodomy is morally wrong and repulsive, that is not a fallacy. It is a fact based upon reasonable analysis of the act and its consequences.

I hope you don’t believe that. There’s many cultures where homosexuality is not viewed through your superstitious and medieval abrahamic point of view. So, its not a fact that “sodomy is morally wrong” based on a suppossed consensus. (and are you aware I’m bisexual and found that extremely offensive?)

If the vast majority of mankind believe in supernatural powers, that is an indication of a profound and natural intuition that most humans share.

No it isn’t. The implication is I’m somehow arrogant for not believing what a bunch of lemmings believe? The consensus was once the world was flat, but obviously it is not. Appeal to consensus is a fallacy.

The majority of mankind DOESNT believe in supernatural powers. The concept of the supernatural is from medieval Catholic Scholasticism, and doesn’t exist in many cultures. Things just happen according to nature or the Tao or karma, not according to the will of a “supernatural” being

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We need statues of people like Oscar Romero to remind us of what goodness looks like.

That’s true, and that is sufficient. As for the rest of what you said, that there are evil people in the hierarchy of the Catholic faith, and everywhere, is not something I am ignorant of. But I am intelligent enough to realise that you don’t judge the validity of a theology according to the behaviour of people. And again you neglect that there has been many Catholics, Priests, and believe it or not “good Popes”, who fought for the poor and for freedom and a better society. Its a shame that people only focus on the bad and ignore whole chunks of history in-order to serve a personal agenda; but its not surprising if people are looking for a reason to hate something.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Daedelus

I hope you don’t believe that. There’s many cultures where homosexuality is not viewed through your superstitious and medieval abrahamic point of view.

Plato and Aristotle, for example, were neither abrahamic nor medieval.

Appeal to consensus is a fallacy.

No it isn’t. Get your fallacies straight in your head. Appeal to consensus is a fallacy only if the consensus is false. Which in this case it isn’t. You and all homosexuals don’t get to define what a consensus is.

So, its not a fact that “sodomy is morally wrong” based on a suppossed consensus. (and are you aware I’m bisexual and found that extremely offensive?)

So what am I supposed to say. That sodomy is not offensive? Grow up.

 

[tonyrey]

Nonsequitur. How can one be closer to an omnipresent being? Anyways, to be more explicit: I doubt the Pope is any closer to absolute truth than you or me.

Closeness to anyone doesn’t depend on closeness to absolute truth but on** love**. You do not **seem **to be as close to One you don’t believe exists (and do not love) as a person who dedicates his life to that Being - but your love for others means you may be far closer to God than we realise:

“Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

 

[Daedelus76]

That’s true, and that is sufficient. As for the rest of what you said, that there are evil people in the hierarchy of the Catholic faith, and everywhere, is not something I am ignorant of. But I am intelligent enough to realise that you don’t judge the validity of a theology according to the behaviour of people

I disagree… when I was attending an Orthodox church, i was told that language about God is not necessarily to say what is factual about God, but what leads a person to purification of the mind against the passions. Well, I just don’t see that happening in the end any better than psychotherapy, self help, or a dozen other non-religious modalities, so I conclude God-talk, religion, is absurd and not worth my time. On the whole its a negative influence, despite all the Oscar Romeros out there.

 

[Daedelus76]

And historians and scholars would also point out there views of homosexuality don’t seem in line with the medieval teaching of your church.

So what am I supposed to say. That sodomy is not offensive? Grow up.

Your attitude speaks volumes about the problems with the Catholic religion being taken seriously by people like me. You think snubbing gays is somehow supposed to be endearing, convince me of the truthfulness of your beliefs? If you find sodomy offensive, that’s your problem, not mine- it reflects more on a warped sensibility than on truth.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I disagree… when I was attending an Orthodox church, i was told that language about God is not necessarily to say what is factual about God, but what leads a person to purification of the mind against the passions. Well, I just don’t see that happening in the end any better than psychotherapy, self help, or a dozen other non-religious modalities, so I conclude God-talk, religion, is absurd and not worth my time. On the whole its a negative influence, despite all the Oscar Romeros out there.

In other words, you refuse to judge a religion according to its theology; and thus its easy to make a strawman. If you did study the theology properly in light of the proper authorities, you would realise that religion offers no guarantee that people will be good; but rather that those who act for the will of God and repent and make a true effort to change and turn away from sin will be saved from their wickedness and moral imperfections. Many religious people who claim to be good will not be saved.

The fact that you think you can used the wickedness of evil people in-order to belittle the efforts and the existence of all the Oscar Romeros and faith inspired moral heroes of the world is just a convenience and an excuse to ignore the inconvenience of their reality and the good that they have done in the name of faith and moral-truth. This cannot change the fact that your views on how you judge theology is ultimately irrational; its just a number game fallacy and weak in the eyes of an honest person who actually does do the study and the hard-work to know God. That an evil person has beliefs and interprets those belief to immoral ends does not necessitate that the beliefs themselves are wicked; it shows that beliefs and ideologies can be abused and can mean different things to different people; it also shows that you do not care to find out how religion can be good, because that does not serve your own agenda.

Its laughable that you think you truly have the moral high ground when in reality your world-view rejects the knowledge of objective moral truth as defined by Christianity and its relevance in any discussion. So, all you are doing here is expressing your “tastes” and your irrational emotions and genetic impulses, and in so far as that is the case your personal opinion on human actions and religious beliefs is morally irrelevant in so far as the truth is concerned, and no rational person is going to feel guilty because of anything you have to say.

If you hate religion and all it stands for, fine; but that doesn’t really prove to anyone that there is any truly good reason to hate it other than the fact that the Christian lifestyle is undesirable to you.

 

[Daedelus76]

In other words, you refuse to judge a religion according to its theology; and thus its easy to make a strawman. If you did study the theology properly in light of the proper authorities, you would realise that religion offers no guarantee that people will be good; but rather that those who act for the will of God and repent and make a true effort to change and turn away from sin will be saved from their wickedness and moral imperfections. Many religious people who claim to be good will not be saved.

No, some Catholic ideas just don’t work in the real world, and I’ve already submitted I do not believe we can state, even know, facts about God . So really religion must be judged on what it produces, “by your fruits you will know them”, right? Well, psychotherapy, self-help, and “new age” spirituality ultimately produce better people than Christianity- we can live a better life without your “infallible” clerics telling us how to live, cowering in fear to man-made traditions and rules based on spurious, degenerate medieval reasoning.

On the contrary, Oscar Romero became a great human being when he started paying attention to his own experiences and the experiences of others and put aside the Church hierarchy’s mentalities; ideologies that would have sentimentalized poverty and ignored oppression. That is why he’s not beatified, because the Catholic Church doesn’t care about real goodness, real justice.

 

[tonyrey]

No, some Catholic ideas just don’t work in the real world, and I’ve already submitted I do not believe we can state, even know, facts about God . So really religion must be judged on what it produces, “by your fruits you will know them”, right? Well, psychotherapy, self-help, and “new age” spirituality ultimately produce better people than Christianity…

Psychotherapy, self-help, and “new age” spirituality presuppose Christian values.

…we can live a better life without your “infallible” clerics telling us how to live…

In other words you regard your own reasoning and moral conclusions as infallible!

…cowering in fear to man-made traditions… and rules based on spurious, degenerate medieval reasoning.

If you were consistent you would reject the teaching of Jesus if it amounts to no more than “man-made traditions”…

…and rules based on spurious, degenerate medieval reasoning.

You need to explain how and why it is “spurious” and “degenerate”.

On the contrary, Oscar Romero became a great human being when he started paying attention to his own experiences and the experiences of others and put aside the Church hierarchy’s mentalities; ideologies that would have sentimentalized poverty and ignored oppression.

False! You are obviously unaware of the social teaching of the Catholic Church and the work of missionaries in the third world.

That is why he’s not beatified, because the Catholic Church doesn’t care about real goodness, real justice.

False! The Catholic Church has done and is doing far more to alleviate human poverty, misery and suffering throughout the world than “humanists” who pontificate from the comfort of their homes…