Atheist picture book will compare belief in God to an abusive relationship

[rug]

A draft image of a page from Hemant Mehta’s upcoming book “God is an Abusive Boyfriend (and you should break up)”. Artwork by Tracey Moody, taken from the Kickstarter campaign and used with permission. Chris Stedman | Aug 7, 2014

Yesterday (August 6), “The Friendly Atheist” blogger Hemant Mehta announced his newest project: a fundraising campaign for a book entitled God is an Abusive Boyfriend (and you should break up).

Featuring artwork by Tracey Moody, the picture book will draw parallels between belief in God and an abusive relationship. While initially describing it as “the most fun I’ve ever had on a writing project,” Mehta acknowledged that the subject might be controversial to some.

“We understand some people will have strong feelings about this project, but it’s certainly not our goal to offend anyone,” he wrote on the book’s Kickstarter page. “If you’re religious, we hope it nudges you to think differently. If you’re not religious, we hope you find it entertaining and informative.”

But a number of atheists did take issue with it. Heidi Anderson, an atheist who has spent much of her life working with victims of domestic abuse, was among them.

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/08/07/new-atheist-picture-book-compares-belief-god-domestic-abuse/





http://anthonybsusan.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/god-isnt-abusive-people-are/

This will go a long way to trivializing domestic violence.

[AuntPatsy]

1. Yet there are obvious parallels sad as it may be to believers...

[rug]

3. Which rapidly meet upon examination, sad as it may be to nonthinkers.

They are not parallel at all.

[AuntPatsy]

5. In my opinion they are very similar....

[rug]

7. That's fine.

I happen to disagree.

Domestic abuse is real.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. And god is not.

[rug]

10. Ergo, a book about god being abusive trivializes domestic abuse.

Q.E.D.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. You're freaking me out, man

[rug]

15. This will help.

[AuntPatsy]

21. So are the abuses against everyone that stem from many many religious beliefs...

FWIW I have my own personal beliefs which are pretty much formed from years of religious doctrines peppered with common sense and actual science....

I am no ones enemy. I just favor personnel beliefs to be just that, personnel..

[Brettongarcia]

55. Rug himself, with his curtly dismissive authoritarian style, is a perfect case in point

The idea - from feminism and say Mary Daley's Beyond God the Father - has been that males, including our male God, have been bossy and overbearing, domineering, and curtly controlling. http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-God-Father-Philosophy-Liberation/dp/0807015032

[rug]

73. I would respond to your bizarre, second-person-impaired, post but you might think it dismissive.

We can't have that.

[Brettongarcia]

82. Whereas Rug does have the right and authority to be curtly dismissive?

What is your statement but raw, thinly veiled egotism? Based on no evidence at all. Not generally regarded as a good religious quality. But typical of the religious patriarchy in point of fact.

By the way? I notice Rug always disappears, when there is something substantive to be discussed. What about say, "The Problem of Evil," discussed in part below?

Will Rug address that? Probably not. What Rug really and only likes, is raw posturing of "superiority," and low insult.

[rug]

83. I didn't want you to jump to get it.

[Brettongarcia]

86. Looks like your own responses are following rapidly? In any case, getting thi8s is important

And you have yet to respond to "the Problem of Evil."

Instead, you - as I predicted - prefer to try to initiate a deliberately distracting game of insult one-upsmanship. To distract from the point that ... you have no answer.

Let's see: why don't we test you, by asking your to restate the problem in your own words. Then propose an actually substantive answer.

If you have no substantive answer to the Problem of Evil, then you have nothing, after all.

[rug]

89. The short answer is that the Problem of Evil is a human problem, not a divine one.

If you'll notice, the evil Epicurus sees is all done by human beings.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Isaiah 45:7

[Brettongarcia]

95. Isaiah 45.7: "I ... create woe, I am the LORD"

[rug]

99. Scholarship.

5 I am the LORD, there is no other, there is no God besides me. It is I who arm you, though you do not know me,

6 so that all may know, from the rising of the sun to its setting, that there is none besides me. I am the LORD, there is no other.

7 I form the light, and create the darkness, I make weal and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things.

8 Let justice descend, you heavens, like dew from above, like gentle rain let the clouds drop it down. Let the earth open and salvation bud forth; let righteousness spring up with them! I, the LORD, have created this.

The whole passage is Isaiah's (whoever that mat be) description of monotheism and the infiniteness of Yahweh.

You are, of course, free to conclude that this is what God was muttering as he assembled the ebola virus.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. And that is of course, not the only 'I am the source of evil' sort of passage.

"You are, of course, free to conclude that this is what God was muttering as he assembled the ebola virus. "

But that's a hilarious image, thank you for that.

[rug]

104. No, it isn't, assuming it is an 'I am the source of evil' sort of passage at all.

[Brettongarcia]

94. But God made human beings, with the capacity to do evil.

Nice of him, eh? Make us that way ... and then blame us for the consequences.

[rug]

101. No, he made humans with the capacity to choose.

You may have preferred to be an automaton.

[Fix The Stupid]

106. What about mental issues?

For example, someone gets off a murder charge because of the insanity defense.

How does that insane person have a choice between good & evil?

[rug]

107. No. In fact the law provides that when a defendant lacks the capacity to form a criminal intent,

there is no crime. In New York, the insanity defenses is called the Not Responsible defense, for good reason.

§ 40.15 Mental disease or defect.
In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that
when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal
responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. Such lack of
criminal responsibility means that at the time of such conduct, as a
result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to
know or appreciate either:
1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or
2. That such conduct was wrong.

There are other examples of legal incapacity, such as a child or involuntary intoxication.

[Brettongarcia]

112. Problems with Liberal Christianity. With 1) the "free will" response to the Problem of Evil. And 2)?

For Rug “scholarship,” or call it intelligent professionalism, is here, literally a bad word.

Similar ideas would be typical of many liberal Christians. Who believe that the 1) “mind” and/or professional training, is all but evil. Liberals typically believing that we should skip all critical thinking, and just consult say, our inner feelings, specially our “heart.” If we do this, then we will have direct access to the truth, and the real God. But as it turns out, the Bible and commonsense, warn against this: often our innermost “desires” and feelings, our very “heart,” can be and often are, “deceived.” Deep in our inner natures, in our very hearts and innermost feelings, many say, are destructive emotions: “lusts,” “anger,” and so forth. So here is a first objection to Rug's typically liberal religious foundation: 1) relying on some pre-intellectual or scholarly intuition, is not entirely reliable. It is not true that we just “know” the “truth,” “know God,” deep down. Deep down in our very fallible human natures, are many deceptions and destructive things. As even much of religion notes. Though we would add; the Bible shows that there were sins, even in the very things we thought were religious and good (Mat. 16.23). For this reason, the Bible, commonsense, and the school system and civilization, told us to pursue formal practical “knowledge” and practical things of the “mind”; scholarship among them in effect. (See Daniel 1 say)

This leads in turn to 2) the next great theory of modern “advanced” liberal religiosity: Free Will. It is asserted next that to be sure, God might have allowed bad things to exist even in our “hearts” from birth (original sin, etc.). But then the claim is made that he did this, he allowed evil to exist, so that we would have a choice in life: he did not force us to follow God, like “automatons,” as Rug says. So that we are ourselves choosing him, not being forced. But as it turns out? There are dozens of criticisms of this Free Will theory. The bottom line is the incoherence of the master scenario. Briefly, this (Pauline) argument is incoherency: God is creating all the evil and pain and torture in the world - just so we can freely choose him, and tell him he is wonderful.

Beware of the anti-intellectualism, the anti-scholarly, anti- “mind” side of religion; it is an evil trick. Once religion has condemned, turned off your mind, once religion has thus turned off your Reason, science, your ability to think, once it has condemned much of "worldly" "knowledge," then it has you in its grips; then it can now make you believe any silly thing, and never listen to a reasonable counterargument. Therefore this kind of religion, with the whole Romantic myth of some kind of direct intuition of the Good, by the “heart” or whatever, and “hate” for what scientific scholarship might say, is finally wrong. And immensely destructive. It literally destroys part of your mind. Which was its target, all along.

Always be on the watch for evil things in the heart of what you are told is Holy. Even the Bible itself warned about this, over and over again. In the present case, the myth of some kind of direct and reliable folk access to God, is one of the evil things in modern Liberal Christianity. It literally attacks and destroys much of your mind. Knowing that once your mind, your Reason is deactivated, you are much more vulnerable to religious tricks and deceit.

Here Rug will no doubt assert as usual, or imply by his summary condemnation of such arguments, that he has more of a mind than anyone. But that is just a typical bit of braggadocio, or egotism. While egotism is usually thought to be one of the false aspects of the heart, as a matter of fact.

[AlbertCat]

79. including our male God,

It's very bizarre to have a male creator....who isn't part of his creation but just sorta "touches" it from afar. I remember Joseph Campbell or someone like that pointing this out. Most religions have a female creator....who sometimes does the creating by herself but more often must have some congress somehow with a male god. She is usually the Earth itself, or the sky or some part of the creation we see.

[cbayer]

16. Did you read the linked article by any chance?

What exactly do you think the obvious parallels are between people who believe in god and women who are in relationships with abusive men?

[AuntPatsy]

23. To be honest no, the pictures to me spoke volumes as well as what I have read from

Religious material in the past, The simple truths for many religions is that obedience is to be had at all times, you cannot deny that, if you are disobedient, some religions have given you an out from hell and damnation by showing one how prayers can be your saving grace. Conveint and non abusive I guess in some minds but abusive all the same, the mental kind...

So yes even forgiveness can only be had with a form of obedience....

Let's not forget miracles, of course not every believer is so blessed, sadly but don't question "His" reasons why! your answer will only be forthcoming in "Death". ...

Or so it is written....

[cbayer]

31. I suggest you take a look at the linked article.

Although you make some good points, it might be worth your time to see why this might be really inappropriate.

[AuntPatsy]

34. Ok

[AuntPatsy]

35. I just finished reading it, while I can and do understand that for some, drug addicts, criminals,

Abusers etc as well as the victims, religion can be a helpful way for them to deal with such issues but I stand by my initial assessment regarding the pictures.

I have no desire to deprive others of the need for healing avenues be they medicines or other, but I cannot in good faith to my beliefs deny just how similar they are...

I honestly wish I could see differently at times but with age and added wisdom through the years my earlier up bringing teachings just no longer spoke truth, it does sadden me some times but I cannot ignore what I feel is closer to the truth then what was indoctrinated for so many years.

To be honest I cam recall even as a child of 5 in kindergarten Catholic School that some of what I was being taught simply did not pass for reality...

[cbayer]

36. I still don't know what you see as the commonalities, but am glad that you

did read the POV of someone who strongly objected to it.

BTW, the author has decided not to pursue the project. He heard and understood the objections.

It sounds like your own negative experiences have led you to your position, which is ok. Others have had markedly different experiences.

And while for some there may be some vague similarities to being in an abusive relationship, to generalize that really trivializes the experience of those that experience or have experienced real domestic abuse.

Welcome to the religion group. I hope you will continue to participate here.

[AuntPatsy]

37. You get me wrong, first the author might have altered this book but not by choice nor was the author

Changed in opinion, was done simply because author had no wish to have others feel bad...

Secondly, I had a wonderful religious upbringing, I recall at 5 years old walking to the church across a busy highway alone any day of the week simply because I enjoyed the atmosphere of such an imposing shrine....

So really no negativity to wards how I viewed the concept early on while being limited in knowledge and study, yet obviously we grow up and we learn more, have a better understanding of what is fact as well as fiction...

It puts me at a somewhat disadvantage because in the present day my views go both ways, I do not dislike religion nor religious people, My Aunt is a nun whom I absolutely adore, but I do dislike the "obvious" being so easily ignored...

[cbayer]

39. I don't think you really know this author and I believe your assumptions about

him are incorrect. He's not one to be cowed into changing his mind. According to his own statements, he decided not to proceed because he learned something from the comments he received.

You started out this conversation by saying that his point was true and valid. I hope that you may reconsider that.

It doesn't sound like your personal experience with religion was anything like being in an abusive relationship, so I'm not clear on where you got that idea.

What is the "obvious" that you feel is so easily ignored?

[eomer]

56. I believe AuntPatsy's take was pretty accurate. Let's let him speak for himself.

Update: Because people have suggested that we're somehow making light of domestic violence, we wanted to assure you that's not the case. In fact, we take the issue very seriously. This idea of God as an abusive partner is not a new one and a lot has been written about the parallels. Many of those essays, however, are written for a more academic audience. Our goal is to simplify those thoughts and present them in a way that will hopefully be more effective.

To those who say we're trivializing the seriousness of abuse, we would respond by taking into account the millions of people who are taught to believe that their every move is being watched, that they are constantly judged, that they'll never be good enough, and that they deserve the bad things that happen to them. That mental torment will follow a lot of them well into adulthood, affecting their real world relationships. The parallel with domestic abuse is a very real one (other than that God is a figment of the imagination) and that's what we want to show in this book.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/813896901/god-is-an-abusive-boyfriend-and-you-should-break-u

But while he said that anyone who thinks the book is “victim-blaming” is employing “an uncharitable interpretation of this project,” he admitted it may have some problems.

“Are the pictures too graphic, like one of Tracey looking very scared when hiding things from God? Unfortunately, that may be true,” Mehta said, adding that he and Moody hope to add a male character to the book and plan to run all of the artwork by others before publication. “If any of them rub people the wrong way, we will change them.”

He also acknowledged some issues with the book’s announcement.

“There are some word choices I used in the Kickstarter that I would love to go back and change because I know they came off the wrong way,” Mehta said. “There’s nothing fun or entertaining about [abuse]. But if people want to pick out words and phrases in an effort to claim I’m misogynistic or delight in abuse, instead of looking at the broader picture of what we’re trying to do, I can’t stop them.”

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/08/07/new-atheist-picture-book-compares-belief-god-domestic-abuse/

Canceling the Kickstarter Project

August 7, 2014 by Hemant Mehta 313 Comments

After receiving a lot of negative feedback over the past 24 hours, I’ve decided to put a stop to the project. Even if I believe the concept behind the book is a valid one, the execution was poor and it upset a lot of good people. My apologies to anyone in that crowd.

To everyone who supported the project so far, I appreciate your understanding. I hope you’ll support whatever I decide to do next.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/08/07/canceling-the-kickstarter-project/

He chose to sum it up by saying:

"Even if I believe the concept behind the book is a valid one, the execution was poor and it upset a lot of good people."

[cbayer]

58. I think those quotes show that it was both his choice and that he changed his mind.

My take is that he did not realize how offensive it was, came to realize that and made a conscious decision to withdraw.

I like him very much and find his response quite in keeping with what I have found his character to be.

He is a bright and thoughtful man who is a good spokesperson for non-believers.

He could have gotten all arrogant and defensive, but he did the exact opposite.

Thanks for the links, though.

[eomer]

59. He clearly didn't decide that the concept was offensive.

There is no way to read his comments and conclude that he changed his mind about the concept behind the book, since that would be the opposite of what he actually said.

He summed it up with:

"Even if I believe the concept behind the book is a valid one, the execution was poor and it upset a lot of good people."

Clearly he still believes that with an improved execution the concept is sound. In other words, he hasn't changed his mind about the concept, which is what AuntPatsy said.

[cbayer]

60. Right, probably things like changing the illustrations would have helped a great deal.

He made a mistake. He's grown up enough to admit it. He has the capacity to listen to others and change direction.

All of this is admirable. Unfortunately there are those that get highly defensive when their ideas are criticized and lash out with rants about how right they are and how everyone else is just lame for not seeing it.

He's not one of those people.

I will remind you again that I do not like conversations about other people. You want to support another members take on this, do so directly to her. I disagree with her and I think she is perfectly capable of defending her own position.

[Brettongarcia]

52. Abusive people, like God and his believers, are say, overbearing and bullying.

They suggest/tell us to do many things. In curt tones.

[CBGLuthier]

2. Good thing atheists don't proselytize.

Except of course the asshole ones do. Sad to be so obsessed with other people's beliefs.

[truebluegreen]

6. On that point,

why is there a Religion (Group)?

Just askin.'




p.s. don't mind me, I just stumbled in here by accident.

[cbayer]

18. Why is there a Latin America Group?

[AlbertCat]

47. Why is there a Latin America Group?

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

To discuss whether Latin America exists or not?

[cbayer]

51. I doubt it. More likely to discuss current events in Latin America

particularly as they interact with american politics.

There may also be some conversation about culture, differences within the LA community, prejudice towards people from LA, etc.

[rug]

74. Ok, that was pretty funny.

A chuckle, mind you, not a .

[AuntPatsy]

11. There would not even be conflict if in fact there were not the very real fear that religion is in

Fact the real threat formed against those that refuse to believe the so called rhetoric that pushes religion on everyone regardless of personnel beliefs...

That current politicians must all announce a belief in a more than absent so called father of all or God as the case may be that has never even been witnessed should scare everyone into realizing a ground war against those ignoring certain beliefs is ineviditable...

[Cheap_Trick]

24. Well, when we are governed by "other people's beliefs"

and have those beliefs shoved in our faces on a daily basis don't think for one minute that we are not going to push back. I'm sick and tired of hearing those poor little christians whine about how oppressed they are. I'm sick of subsidizing religion with my tax dollar so they can fleece the sheeple TAX FREE. Not "obsessed, just DISGUSTED.

[cbayer]

4. That's really unfortunate.

I suppose he thought it was cute, but I don't find it cute at all.

I'm disappointed in him.

Again, people with a point of privilege can't always see what others experience. In this case, men should not make light of women being abused by the men in their lives.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. I don't think it's making light of abuse of women, I think it's making light of the

sanctimonious supposed wonderfulness of the human concept of 'god', by comparing it to something that is genuinely and intentionally offensive. (Abusing women.)

In all honesty, it's close enough to the line though, that I will not reject how you interpreted it. I can see how it might come across that way. I think that's a casualty of trying to make the material approachable. But I can see your concern in this case.

[rug]

13. The problem is it uses real pain to make a dubious point about god and/or religion.

Advocates of this tactic use anything to make those points.

Privilege comes to mind.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. On the other hand...

god/religion/religious doctrine can bring about real pain as well...

Which is actually the association I think he is trying to illustrate.

[rug]

17. Groovy.

I'll be in another place for a while.

[PassingFair]

30. I'm a woman, and I don't object to it.

Then again, I've listened to a man who was raised in a snake-handling Christian environment
talk about how he literally had to leave his younger siblings behind and get away as a young teen.
Horror stories.

I've also talked to someone who has been "shunned" from a religious group.

I've known many people who were harmed.

[AlbertCat]

48. I've known many people who were harmed.

And since many many abusive attitudes towards women, girlfriends and wives are codified into religion, I don't object to this either.

Besides, it's meant to be controversial. The authors acknowledge that.

[Starboard Tack]

57. Being shunned intolerant groups can be quite cathartic

There are a few of us who can testify to that.

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. There are situations for which this comparison might be appropriate.

Some religious/spiritual environments are toxic and do need to be escaped from. And if a person considers those situations to be the "butter" of religion, whereas everything else is "I can't believe it's not butter", I can see how they wouldn't understand why this comparison would not resonate for many people. Specifically, the people who view toxic religion/spirituality as just one form of expression among many, or as itself the "I can't believe it's not butter" to the "butter" of liberal/moderate forms of religion.

[stone space]

33. Relationships between people and institutions can be abusive, just like...

...relationships between individuals can be abusive.

If the book had said that relationships with religion are like relationships with people, and explored both the abusive and non-abusive aspects of both, he might have been on firmer ground.

But by comparing all relationships with religious institutions with abusive personal relationships by fiat does seem to trivialize domestic abuse.

Occasionally, I'll hear somebody compare all interpersonal relationships with abusive relationships, which I think suffers from much the same trivialization of domestic violence.

[okasha]

20. This makes the trifecta.

Child abuse, rape and domestic violence.

Mind-boggling.

[phil89]

22. Well people do claim a personal relationship

With god. If that's so it certainly seems abusive.

[msongs]

25. great book, identifies a leading cause of domestic violence and trivializes nothing nt

[cbayer]

32. Belief in god is a leading cause of domestic violence?

As a rational person led by reason and free thought, I am sure you have something to back that up with.

[Brettongarcia]

54. 1) Four decades of Feminism, on overbearing patriarchial authority, suggested God is an abusive male

This approach was used say, c. 1974 by Mary Daley. In her book "Beyond God the Father." To suggest that God himself is simply a symbol, a typical example, of male, patriarchal abusiveness

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-God-Father-Philosophy-Liberation/dp/0807015032

2) Furthermore, there were countless actual cases narrated in the press and in serious literature, of literal abuse. That were apparently caused or worsened by males, husbands, quoting the Bible. They quoted the parts that told wives to "obey" their husbands (1 Corin, etc.).

In this way, the Bible has for some time been considered to significantly worsen domineering and abusive males, in abusive relationships.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. Ummm, I think it properly trivializes religion

by pointing out that in the real world "God" would be considered a dangerous sociopath, at best. I have pointed out to folks who insist on the "we are children of God" viewpoint that if such is the case, God is demonstrably an abusive parent. This hardly "trivializes" child abuse.

[intaglio]

27. I don't particularly like the concept myself but ...

In many abusive relationships the victim is forced into a mindset that lets them blame themselves for the criticism and punishments they receive. Equally they are put into the position of thanking the partner for the perfectly normal good things in life, such as not being hit. Together these let a parallel be drawn between an abusive partner and a faith or deity.

But as I say this book not a good way to do it, too many people have suffered from abuse in relationships to make suitable for a humorous treatment of faith.

[Jim__]

28. I expected better from Mehta.

[pinto]

29. I find this kind of sad. It seems to minimize or caricature a lot of things. Including youth.

My gut take.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

38. Going to church and believing you're a worthless sinner is abusive, in my opinion.

As far as you are a worthless sinner unless you accept Jesus, which is the foundational concept of Christianity.

I think that's definitely emotional abuse. I don't need anyone laying a guilt trip on me I don't deserve, or telling me to be ashamed of my very existence because I am walking on this Earth and breathing, just because I was born.

That's exactly like an abusive spouse telling you "You're no good, you'll never make it on your own."

I walked out years ago to save my sanity. That was more important than giving myself up to a made-up solution to a non-existent problem. I had to get strong and get my self-esteem back after preachers told ALL of us in the congregation we were worthless sinners, our "righteousness is as filthy rags" blah blah blah.

Not saying I or anyone else is perfect, just that we get through life making mistakes and have enough trouble dealing with what life circumstances are dealt us, without some self-righteous horse's ass of a preacher piling it on. Making himself feel better for dumping loads of unearned guilt and shame on a whole bunch of people who, unfortunately, believe him. That's a sick way to dominate people.
It's a good way to crush people and keep them from reaching their potential, like any abusive relationship.

I refuse to subject myself to such overwhelming negativity.

[rug]

40. If that's what it is about you'd be right.

It's not.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

41. The starting premise of Christianity is ORIGINAL SIN, the idea that you are going to hell.

Don't tell me that's not Christianity. You are being disingenuous.

That is the defining premise of Christianity. If there was no Original Sin which is imputed to all people, not just Adam and Eve (added to the doctrine by St. Augustine) then there would be no need for salvation through substitutionary atonement.

[rug]

42. No, the starting premise is that we were created as an expression of infinite love.

Shall we go on? It is likely to be quite lengthy. Mercy will entire the picture after about 40 posts.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

43. That starting premise is news to me. I have never heard that statement in church before.

I have never seen that in a Christian creed.

[rug]

44. The sad fact is that too many talk about fear and in the process forget it's not about that at all.

John 4

16 So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.
17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.
19 We love because he first loved us.
20 Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.
21 The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

45. Haven't seen that in any statement of belief.

Have heard the quote "perfect love casts out fear" but not the rest of it.

You still have not refuted my statement.

[rug]

46. I'm not interested in refuting you.

I've heard it my entire life. I have no idea what you've heard.

[Brettongarcia]

53. Religious haters: how about the countless times God genocidally kills? Then tells us to "hate"?

"For all these things I hate, says the LORD" (Zech. 8.17);

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters ... he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14.26).

"He who hates his life in this world will keep it" (John 12.25).

Rug? You really shouldn't trust preachers, and what they told you about Christianity. Their selections from the Bible, their portrait of a religion of "love," were never honest overviews of what the Bible really said.

For that matter, the Bible often warned us about bad and false things in our religious leaders. Look up the word "false" in a concordance. And also "priests." Most interesting is the moment that Jesus himself calls St. Peter "Satan." In Mat. 16.23.

You probably didn't hear much about that dark side of God and the Bible, in catechism class or parochial school. But religion, Christianity, has a dark side: our monastic priests. And their "hate" for "life." In the "world." Finally we can see, they really loved hate and death itself. As noted in the Bible itself.

[rug]

75. Very simple.

A god like that would not be a god at all. I don't worry about nonexistent things.

Frankly, I can not conceive how such an entity would bother to create anything in the first place.

As to the God that I believe does exist, it could only be a god if it was based on love for its creation.

Those verses you so avidly produce, and dozens more, have been examined for centuries and reveal more about the times in which they were written and the humans for whom they were written than they do about the nature of a god.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Have you ever read "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream"?

[rug]

78. No, but I just checked the synopsis and I like what I see.

It's all online.

http://styrofoam.voidaudio.net/ihavenomouthandimustscream.pdf

I'll let you know. Thanks for the tip.

[Brettongarcia]

80. Liberal Christianity likes to say that it has simply progressed beyond the violent God of the past.

But that's just one of the delusions of Liberal Christianity/religion. It is well known in theology and philosophy, that the liberal concept of God - all good and loving - does not hold up to what we see in the world.

Specifically the liberal loving God does not hold up to the fact that there is obviously much evil in the world. So that we would have to conclude that liberalism's "good" God, created evil. Which seems hard to justify; it seems even self-contradictory.

That's the famous "Problem of Evil." And it's aimed right at your own concept of God. Which just not seem to hold up to careful examination.

[rug]

81. And intelligent people can distinguish between a god and thousand year old societies.

That's the famous "Problem of Scholarship." And it's aimed right at you.

[Brettongarcia]

84. Still no answer from Rug, eh? Just saying a question is from scholars, is enough to condemn it?

[rug]

85. There was an answer. Unsurprisingly, you missed it.

[Brettongarcia]

87. So what IS the "Problem of Scholarship"? IS the reference to Nietzche's formulation? Ayn Rand?

It's not so well known. Here you have apparently simply descended into a private language. To complement imaginary playmates?

[rug]

88. The problem - for literalists - is that scholarship from many fields sheds light on those verses

which are carefully plucked to demonstrate the Biblical notion of God is a homicidal sadist. And that light shows the times and circumstances under which they were written. Without the scholarship, the Bible is poor pulp fiction. Some prefer to leave it at that, but that approach would also leave Moby Dick a fishing documentary.

[Brettongarcia]

96. Modern Christianity is still wrong: even taking the Bible metaphorically leaves big sins in religion

In particular, one main problem even with the metaphoricalists, is that typically, modern liberal Christians take the physical events of the Bible as specifically, say, metaphors for "spiritual" things.

So for example, Moses and then Jesus appear to be pictured at first giving us real, physical, material, literal "Bread." Out of thin air. Something that only happens today in magical stage tricks: making rabbits appear out of empty hats. It is thought by liberal Christians that this problem of no miracles is resolved, when Jesus began to hint that this might be a spiritual metaphor; for Jesus himself, bringing his salvational thought, as "bread indeed." Thus Christians are now allegedly excuses for not working the big physical miracles they often promised; they can now claim their promises were never literally true, but were only metaphors. Metaphors for specifically "spiritual" things.

However? I've been noting continuously that in turn, "spirituality" itself, the heart of the metaphorical approach, has serious problems; in its own right. The Bible 1) often warned about "false" things in spirits; it 2) even warned of a certain lack in the holy spirit of God himself. As Paul warned that even the authentic spirit of God did not protect the people of Moses in the wilderness. For this reason, the Bible - and if you don't like the Bible, then common sense too - tell us not to trust the spirits, but to "test the spirits" (1 John 4.1 ff).

If you don't like the Bible? Then note that common sense suggests that often things we think are the "spirit" or idea of God, may be JUST OUR OWN FALLIBLE AND SUBJECTIVE IDEAS. So? We need some way to "test" ... even our modern liberal ideas of God. To see if they are right.

But then what happens, when we look critically at modern liberal religious ideas, metaphors? Psychology and History confirm that there have always been bad and false things in things that people thought were from God, in the past; and if many such errors were made in the past, likely they continue in the present as well.

All that and more means finally, that there is no firm foundation for the religious leanings even of "modern" "spiritual" Christians. And/or for those who take the Bible metaphorically.

Even those who take the Bible metaphorically, like Rug, still have many sins and errors to answer for.

For example? In our current discussion, we seem to be finding problems especially with a certain kind of character found even in the metaphoricalized spirit of (some) semi-modern Christians: a certain residual patriarchal "abuse"-iveness.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Strangest comparison i've ever seen.

I don't have to refer to scholarship to clearly understand Moby Dick.

[rug]

103. It helps if you've studied the story of Ahab.

Not to mention Ishmael.

You're on your own with Queequeg.

[phil89]

113. Based on what objective standard?

nt.

[rug]

114. An omnipotent entity that is essentially destructive would per se be inherently unstable.

I may be biased. I never understood why all the cartoon nemeses wanted to destroy the world.

[Brettongarcia]

121. Therefore our deity is not omnipotent;God is modeled on fallible "fathers" and "kings," Henry VIII

Following their destructive god, preachers want to destroy the "world" in favor of Heaven.

[rug]

126. Or, that your deity is not a deity at all.

I think what you have in mind is more a cartoon than a god.

[Brettongarcia]

127. Yet observation of all the evil in the universe shows that ANY deity created evil

Including your allegedly good liberal one.

[rug]

128. You have observed a deity creating evil?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

90. So you're telling me my experience doesn't exist????

You're telling me that's not Christian doctrine?

So your church has no statement of faith or creed that they believe?

I don't believe that for a second.

[rug]

97. No, I'm telling you that whatever your experience was, as you recall it,

it does not establish objective fact. That's a mind projection fallacy.

Not only does the Church have a Creed, which you know, it has a Catechism.

Paragraph 356: "He is "'the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake'."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

108. So you're telling me that the ministers are lying to me when they repeat these doctrines?

I'm talking about their doctrines that they believe and repeat to the congregations. The fact is that they believe those doctrines, not that those doctrines are in themselves factual.

These were Protestant churches with a creed in writing that was recited, and/or a statement of faith. Usually it was The Apostles' Creed which goes into detail about substitutionary atonement.

You're saying words don't have a plain meaning that I heard?

I believe you are talking about Catholics.

[rug]

109. I don't know what they told you or what you heard.

I don't even know which denomination you were in.

What I am telling you, from a Catholic perspective, that you have every right to be skeptical of a religion that tells you you're worthless and headed for damnation unless . . . . whatever it is they want you to do.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

110. I've told you what I heard.

Methodists and Baptists. I've also gone to various other churches who believed original sin and substitutionary atonement, but didn't dwell on it because they were more liberal and were into social justice. At Unity they omit all the negative stuff and just talk about Jesus as a good guy and positive thinking. They attract a lot of people into astrology and New Age stuff.

Are you saying Catholics don't believe in original sin and substitutionary atonement?

I believe I have heard the Pope on TV from Saint Peter's Basilica referring to the one true church, the one holy and apostolic church that he represents. So isn't that saying you're going to hell if you're not a Catholic?

[rug]

111. From what I understand, many Baptists groups are like that.

Methodists usually aren't.

Unity is one of the older groups in the new age or new thought movement.

The Catholic Church does teach original sin and Christ's redemption. (Substutionary atonement is more a protestant term.) But, that is not the starting point. It's more the turning point back to what was created before humans turned away.

The RCC uses the term "the fullness of faith" now when referring to its doctrines. Its position is that there is truth in many religions but that it has maintained what was originally given it by Jesus Christ.

What you're referring to is the phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (no salvation outside the church) which a lot of people, most notably Fr. Leonard Feeney, taught strictly, i.e., that one must be a member of the Roman Catholic Church to be saved. The RCC rejects that categorically and Feeney and his group were excommunicated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney#History

What it does teach, in addition to formal baptism into the Church by water, is baptism by desire, i.e., that someone who either has never heard of Jesus Christ, or misunderstands him, yet sincerely leads a good life in accord with his or her conscience, can be said to have desired what baptism by water conveys. (Parenthetically, that's loosely the basis for Pope Francis' statement last year that atheists can go to heaven.)

The most complete understanding of that phrase is the RCC teachimg that Jesus died to redeem all from their sin and anyone who is saved from the consequence of sin does so through Christ and, by extension, the Church he directly founded.

[AlbertCat]

50. The sad fact is ...

.... as is usual with the Bible ( and many other religious books), you can find as many statements about how god hates and wants you to fear him.

I'm not going thru such a tedious process however as quote mining the friggin' Bible. Maybe Westboro Baptist Church has a list.

[rug]

76. I think BrettonGarcia has some upthread.

[AlbertCat]

49. It's not.

It's more about getting your money.... thru guilt.

[Exultant Democracy]

61. Religion is often a source of demestic violence so it is pretty on point

Just think of the number of boys who have had the shit beaten out of them or killed by their own family members because they are gay and an invisible ghost in the sky says that being gay is a deadly sin. Shit "spare the rod spoil the child" domestic abuse is built right into Christianity as a good thing.

[cbayer]

62. Religion is not "often" a source of domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a serious problem that is found across cultures and in both religious and non-religious families and environments.

How many boys have been killed by their own family members because they were gay? You would be on solid ground to make the case that religion has been unkind to GLBT persons and particularly to children, but to say there have been a significant number of murders is completely without merit.

Domestic abuse is not built into christianity.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. It is apparently built into christian fundamentalism.

http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/Research/Koch%20Ramirez%20Religion%20and%20Partner%20Violence%20Final%20Feb%2009.pdf

[cbayer]

65. This is a "study" done by graduate students at Texas Tech

that has not been peer reviewed nor published.

It is not science. It is not data.

Putting this out there as some kind of evidence is lamer than some religious people claiming to know the truth.

I don't know where or how you found this, but it is embarrassing to claim that this shows anything at all.

Do you know how to evaluate a paper?

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Sorry, wrong study. This one IS peer reviewed.

http://ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=47

[cbayer]

68. And not statistically significant.

Next?

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Based on?

[cbayer]

70. Did you read it?

I know that you have some education in a variety of things, but being able to assess scientific literature appears to be an areas where you might have some weakness.

In the abstract, the authors openly state that the research did not come up with any conclusions that are statistically significant.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I'm not certain you read that correctly.

"As the foregoing indicates"

and on to

"The current investigation"

Statistical weakness is in the foregoing referenced studies.

[cbayer]

93. Yes, I read it quite correctly.

It's garbage research with no statistical significance. If you want to make a point, I would suggest you use data that is sound, statistically significant and, probably most of all, has been replicated.

Googling for an article that you think makes your point is generally a bad idea, unless there are lots of them and they are sound.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Looks solid to me, and also jives with other things we know about fundamentalist christianity and DV

"Significant numbers of Christian pastors ordinarily would tell a woman being abused that she should continue to submit and to "trust that God would honor her action by either stopping the abuse or giving her the strength to endure it" and would never advise a battered wife to leave her husband or separate because of abuse.[14] One mid-1980s survey of 5,700 pastors found that 26 percent of pastors ordinarily would tell a woman being abused that she should continue to submit and to "trust that God would honor her action by either stopping the abuse or giving her the strength to endure it" and that 71 percent of pastors would never advise a battered wife to leave her husband or separate because of abuse.[14][15]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_domestic_violence

Smoke/fire, etc.

[cbayer]

115. I don't want to be rude, but you really could use some education in how to interpret scientific

literature.

It is an all too common problem with the internet that things are presented as facts when a very cursory look into the source will show that it is not.

And quoting wikipedia without looking at the sources is a major problem.

The wikipedia quote you are using is taken from an article entitled: "Headship with a Heart: How biblical patriarchy actually prevents abuse". It does not support your premise in any way and the quote was taken completely out of context both in the wikipedia article and by you.

Let's just fact it. There is no reliable data to support the assertion that started this subthread. It may or may not be true, but there is not evidence.

As rational people who base our positions on reason and data, let's just leave this one alone.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. I don't understand why you have not shown why you feel the study isn't statistically significant.

Normally I drill down to the source on wiki, this time I did not. I will review the source material.

It would be nice if you would be specific about the study. I see it has many problems, or possible problems, and they are well-defined and open about it in right there in the findings.

[cbayer]

117. You are pulling weak literature out to try to prove a point that can't be proven

based on what is available. That's a bad idea.

If you have good studies published in good journals that have been replicated, you have data that you can bank on.

This is not it. If you find something substantial, let me know.

In the meantime, I don't see the point in discussing this further.

Do you ever sleep?

[AtheistCrusader]

119. I will agree, insofar as there is only so much research available in this area.

To date, much of it has been inadequate. (as the intro to this study details) So I work with what I have. I don't see any inherent flaws in the methodology of that study. In fact, I've seen much weaker studies actually acted upon to implement public policy, on much more dire issues in the past.

And this is a discussion between two people, over an issue, not doing something of greater import, such as crafting law. Naturally, I will allow a lower standard of credibility, because again, there is only so much research to choose from on this topic. I would very much like to see better, and more of it.

I am also trying to leave out of it, that I have personally witnessed some of this violence for the reasons described in the study. Having done so, I can see the difficulty in separating whether it was religion or culture that is the mechanism behind it. Personally, I suspect it is both, and they reinforce each other. But I am not conducting a study, I do not have data beyond my experience, and I am clearly not impartial.

I sleep a little, I guess. Maybe in a bit. 3-4 hours is more than enough. Used to be less, but I kicked all caffeine and 'energy' drinks out of my diet 3 months ago, so I need a bit more now. Plus I'm getting older.

[cbayer]

120. You really should sleep more.

I can pull up some really good literature on this if you want. 3 - 4 hours is inadequate and can lead to significant problems with cognition, emotional lability, judgement, and memory. In addition, it can be a factor in obesity and difficulty losing weight. In some cases, it can lead to psychosis and dangerous behavior.

Anyway, domestic violence is a serious issue. There are many factors that contribute to the incidence of this. In some cases, religion or religious beliefs may play a role. In others, it is cultural or the result of having been abused and religion has no role at all.

It's important to me that simplistic and narrow causes not be given as the primary reasons for abuse. It's important because it ignores all the other factors and because it is used as a blunt weapon against religion, which just gets old.

There is plenty of research on domestic abuse, but no clear evidence that religion is a major factor. Where religion is important in all this, imo, is that people often seek counseling from their religious leaders. For that reason, religious leaders should be educated in domestic violence issues.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Sure, tons of risk factors go with it.

But it's not that I choose to do it. That's just how much I sleep. I don't think it warrants medication to forcibly overcome.

As to 'blunt weapon', I would point out, I did not specify just 'religion', but rather 'fundamentalist christianity'. And only that particular one, given the cultural dominance where I live. If I was speaking to the world, I would have had to alter that specification significantly. I just wanted to make sure you spotted that, because I didn't try to cast aspersions on all religion.

[cbayer]

123. You did say fundamentalist christianity and made it more specific than the

member I was responding to.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. I'm on the fence on that post.

By rolling in child abuse in the form of corporal punishment... It's a pretty broad brush, but my personal views on it would tend to consider that domestic violence as well, so an accurate brush, but I can understand if that is not widely accepted. Curious your thoughts on it.

Personally I never strike my kid. Not a chance. As a parent how the hell am I supposed to teach my kid not to hit other people, if I start hitting him?

[cbayer]

125. I did not use any kind of physical punishment with my kids.

I tried to spank them a couple of times, and I had the weirdest reaction - like my arm was almost paralyzed. I just couldn't do it.

In general, I don't believe in it, but I do respect it as a parent's decision. It's a tough call, but it clearly can become extreme enough to fit the criteria for abuse.

[Exultant Democracy]

64. Google: gay son honor killing, cause your wrong. How isn't Proverbs 13:24 built into Christinaity?

Cause I'm pretty sure it's the christian bible so once again you are very wrong.

[cbayer]

66. I googled it and it doesn't support what you say at all.

Do you have any actual data? Anecdotal incidents prove nothing.

There are lots of things in the bible that are not "built into christianity". Unless you are a literalist, then you can use reasoning to discern what does and does not make sense in the bible.

Are you a literalist?

[Brettongarcia]

72. First? 1) Research suggests that patriarchal religion enables abuse first say, in Mormonism

Last edited Thu Aug 14, 2014, 03:54 AM - Edit history (2)

Cf.: http://aff.sagepub.com/content/11/1/39.short

The strongly patriarchal structure makes questioning the word of fathers difficult.

2) We should have known from pederastygate. Of course, nothing is much more male-oriented than the Roman Catholic Church, and it's at least metaphorical "fathers." And today they are famous for child abuse. These are metaphorically family, "fathers". But more direct examples can be found.

3) More to follow on Christianity. Particularly fundamentalists and so forth. Here males often cite parts of the Bible demanding that women "obey" their husbands, and so forth. Here the Old Testament is used to support severe "punishments."

Many of these were in the historical era; as time and Feminism go on, there are fewer and fewer of these. But the historical record is full of this. Probably the most common and directly relevant, historically common abuse: "WIFE BEATING."

4) Islam of course, is famous for patriarchal abuses.

5) More to follow

Here's something interesting on Evangelicals, in the Journal of Family Violence: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007549401830#page-1


6) Much material is from Feminism. Here's one interesting book: "Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse: A Feminist Critique "

by Joanne Carlson Brown (Editor), Carole R. Bohm (Editor)

3.43 of 5 stars 3.43 · rating details · 7 ratings · 1 review

A groundbreaking and alarmingly challenging anthology that asks if it is possible to be feminist and Christian in light of the patriarchal abuses canonized in the Christian tradition.

7) Here's a promising article that covers the subject of religious influence, in a journal of medical/psychiatric nursing: Sleutel, M R. 1998. "Women's experiences of abuse: a review of qualitative research." Issues In Mental Health Nursing 19, no. 6: 525-539. MEDLINE, EBSCOhost . The article seems to have reported that many women felt that religion was a factor in causing their abuse.

http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=544b112a-8c0f-41a8-aab8-65212ceada46%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4206



Probably the most fruitful and historically-valid avenue of research on the link between God and abusive relationships, would be to look first of all, at the historical biblical justifications used by WIFE BEATERS. Wife-beating by the way, was considered legal even in Christianity countries, until the 19th century.

WIFE BEATING was in fact, legal and extremely common in Christian counties until the 19th century; and the abusers often cited parts of the Bible as their justification and authority. Women from the days of Eve, the evil seductress and liar, were often considered to be the cause of much evil; and were thought to be deserving of regular punishments.

So research the topic of "WIFE BEATING" especially. To begin to see just exactly how the inherently abusive elements of the paternalistic Bible once commonly played out as actual abuse, in the lives of believers. If you are willing to extend your research from Christianity proper, to Islam and Hinduism, you should note hundreds of cases of actual TORTURE AND EXECUTION OF DAUGHTERS AND WIVES, by males, explicitly citing religion as their justification. Some of these cases are current; as recent as 2013 AD.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

91. There are plenty of fundy men who abuse and dominate their families.

And restrict their family members' interactions with the outside world like a prison guard. They control the women and children, and often beat them. Their wives and kids don't respect them but they will never change. They can't control the wife and kids forever. The kids grow up and leave as soon as possible, if they are really determined to get away from the control freak dad.

My husband has been told that he is supposed to control the finances in the family, by a fundy, and that he is not controlling me, as a female, properly. I own real estate and my husband has been told that his job is to deal with real estate. It's in the Bible that husbands are supposed to control their wives, make all the decisions, and wives are to obey their husbands. There in black and white.

However, I live in a community property state where women are presumed to be equal to men in their ability to pay child support and contribute to the monetary support of the household. This is due to the influence of Spanish law in the Southwest United States. In particular, since 1836 community property has applied here.

We are not changing anything in the way we deal with our money or assets because this guy is an angry control freak who wants to keep his kids ignorant and stupid. He's scared of the outside world. His way of life is very dysfunctional and we don't listen to him. He thinks he knows everything and will not listen to anyone else's opinion.

I don't think this book is trivializing domestic violence. It is showing abuse in the sphere of church influence, and also that church attitude towards women reinforces abusive men and rationalizes their behavior.

[rbixby]

105. Looks like he pulled the kickstarter

[cbayer]

118. Yes he did.

Now we are arguing about whether he pulled it voluntarily or not.