Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

whatthehey

(3,660 posts)
95. I think you're missing the point
Fri May 13, 2016, 03:29 PM
May 2016

1) How many people run from cops who they cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch and cannot detect? Cops who are not immanent in the natural world even? The cop analogy is silly because, unlike gods, we know they exist and they only affect concerns for accountability when we know they are in a position to arrest or punish. Running from the accountability of God for nonbelievers would be like running from an otherwise empty crime scene because we saw the movie Robocop and think it's going to burst through the wall. I think believers just can't quite internalize what disbelief is. There is absolutely no difference to me between the threat of hell and the threat of a stocking full of coal from Santa if I'm a naughty boy, or the threat of being reincarnated as a slug in my next samsara stage. They are exactly, 100% analogous to me. I know they are not to you and it may even be an unsettling or offensive thought to consider, but it's the truth. How much do Hindu concerns for a negative reincarnation affect your ethical choices? That's exactly (unless you are a rather unusual believer) how much concern I give to accountability to God.

2) Not sure of the point here. Even for those who are not caught, the accountability of the judicial system is a genuine concern. They know they can be caught and convicted. That's why they try not to be. This is the inverse of the above point. We know cops exist. We certainly don't run in panicked flight from cops who are not there and cannot see us, but neither do we shoot people in crowded places wearing a nametag then sit down in front of a CCTV camera holding up "you can't take me pigs" signs until they arrive. Well, sanity and desire to live as a given. Cops and prisons are a systemic deterrent to antisocial behasvior, but they are so only because we have real world data and experience, hopefully at second hand, of arrests, convictions, and punishments. Divine accountability is not a concern to nonbelievers. Judicial accountability is.

3) I may need to clarify. IF you have any concern for accountability to the Xian god, then you would rationally choose Christianity regardless of your sins, because Christianity offers a path to repentance thence salvation. Nonbelievers have no concern for repentance because, by definition, we don't believe there's anybody there to repent to, or to save, or indeed barring a few Buddhist atheists, anything to be saved from. Deathbed conversions of well known atheists are common glurge but nigh universal lies. it does however have an interesting corollary to point....

4) Without trying to cause offense, this idea has always flabbergaasted me. Correct if you could my understanding..

God, all knowing and all powerful, created a species he knew would fall from grace, and could have created them differently, even retaining free will. He created, obviously with no duress or imposed necessity as who can force God, the means of temptation to that fall and an eternal punishment to apply to that fall. He imposed that penalty on descendents of those who fell in perpetuity regardless of their own personal virtue or failings, and who were never given the choice to fall from grace or not initially. He then waited for many hundreds of generations before giving people a chance to be saved, by believing that he incarnated himself as a sacrificial atonement to himself, essentially "killing" only the human incarnation of a homoousian omnipotent being in a way which, while certainly painful to humans at least, hardly approaches the fate of Robert-Francois Damiens who lacked the consolation of being the divine creator at the time of his demise. And if we, another hundred or so generations away, do not accept this despite many competing claims about eternal verities and with zero empirical evidence to choose between them, then we are condemned to eternal infinite punishment?

That's not the way believers like to put it, but is there any incorrect statement there (and do note I'm not at this point using belittling and dismissive cultural analogs tempting though that is)? If there isn't, exactly how terrible was the fall, how culpable was created mankind, how unforgivable should it be for those who never fell, how awesome was the attempted remedy on God's part and how reasonable is the case that we should accept that remedy from evidence limited to fairly typical Near Eastern mythology? And much more germane, how reasonable is the punishment which is infinite and irrevocable? This is worse than Kafka. God is not just withholding evidence of the charges to Joseph K, he is withholding evidence that there's even a judge and a court to try him, and then saying that once he is dragged into court, there is no chance to seek mitigation or clemency (that corollary BTW - I would surely seek repentance were I given credible empirical evidence that there was anybody to repent to and be saved from. The idea of being a martyr for atheism at the Pearly Gates would be insane).

That's what makes God as Christians typically describe him a vicious loathsome monster. He made us designed to fall when he could have designed us to choose grace in the first place, placed temptation in our path knowing we would succumb, built a hell he did not need to build to punish every human for the fall of some (but he loves us), went millennia before giving us hope and then hid that hope in humdrum syncretic folk tales with no real evidence (for anybody not alive in 1st Century CE Judea), and then sends us to that infinite eternal punishment for not guessing right which religious claims to follow in a few scant decades on Earth, giving no second chances once his very existence is proven to us.

Again how am I wrong here? Again how is that not monstrous evil? If you really want to posit an admirable, let alone worshipful, God, you have to suggest a God who offers universal salvation after appropriate contrition when contrition is proven applicable. A very few believers go this route but most don't because that only makes Christians special for a short blink of eternity.

ETA final reminder - my complaints about hell are complaints against the fictional construct of a loving god offering infinite punishment. I have not the slightest twinkle of belief that either exists in reality and live my life entirely as if they did not.

Here it is Gomez163 May 2016 #1
Or, His schedule and timing may be a bit different than our own...nt jonno99 May 2016 #2
Human beings invented god to deal with mortality and to control others. Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #3
GREAT film. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #8
Or, some deny there is a God (or creator) in an effort to escape accountability...nt jonno99 May 2016 #9
At least you can still sell your children into slavery with no worries Major Nikon May 2016 #10
Nah - it's only what comes out of a person that defiles him. No worries...nt jonno99 May 2016 #12
So you have come to abolish the law? Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #14
The law had/has a purpose; but it was not meant to be an end in itself. jonno99 May 2016 #16
Oh, right. Forgot about that. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #30
What I find fascinating are those who have the ability to read the minds of others - even if jonno99 May 2016 #35
That's a pretty low threshold for fascination. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #43
As I said, the law had a purpose, it was not meant to be an end unto itself. Rather it was to act jonno99 May 2016 #46
Yeah, I heard your post hoc rationalization the first time around. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #47
Well, you did make the claim that: jonno99 May 2016 #51
Acts 15 Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #84
Well, you claimed to have that ability yourself. trotsky May 2016 #50
Matthew 5:17 Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #77
Lucky Christians get to have it both ways, though. trotsky May 2016 #85
It's much more rational than the rigid doctrinaire approach like "Religion poisons everything." rug May 2016 #86
As I've said a few times now - the law had a pupose, one purpose was to provide structure jonno99 May 2016 #87
LOL Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #89
Sure - it's easy to compare contemporary society to the practices of the ancient world. jonno99 May 2016 #90
But we're not making that comparison. trotsky May 2016 #93
You aren't very good at this. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #94
So it was OK for Jesus to change the food laws Brettongarcia May 2016 #54
How dumb and/or evil do you think non-believers are? trotsky May 2016 #15
For starters, none of us are free from evil, so please don't feel like you're being singled out. jonno99 May 2016 #22
Wow. trotsky May 2016 #25
Please don't be amongst those who take offense when none is intended. jonno99 May 2016 #36
I don't really care if you claim it's not directed at me. trotsky May 2016 #37
Fair enough. I would suggest then that you limit your own broad-brush assertions/assumptions jonno99 May 2016 #41
Since I said no such thing, I do not need to limit what I've said. trotsky May 2016 #48
Anti-theism =/ bigotry Major Nikon May 2016 #75
Do you really believe this specious nonsense? mr blur May 2016 #38
Point out the error - please. nt jonno99 May 2016 #42
Let me count the ways whatthehey May 2016 #52
#4...mmf !!! Iggo May 2016 #64
Thanks for a thoughtful reply - my responses: jonno99 May 2016 #91
I think you're missing the point whatthehey May 2016 #95
If you rely on fear of completely unverifiable accountability for morals... Major Nikon May 2016 #76
Agreed. nt jonno99 May 2016 #88
So surely then morality cannot depend on faith? whatthehey May 2016 #96
I don't know your background, so at with the risk of insulting your jonno99 May 2016 #110
Not really the point though whatthehey May 2016 #115
Wow. trotsky May 2016 #116
Accountability? sigh Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #33
Remember, despite the ivory tower pronouncements from would-be theologians... trotsky May 2016 #34
Some invoke god in an effort to escape accountability. dchill May 2016 #78
Stupidity does not need divine intervention to meet its end. rug May 2016 #4
No, you can use your Alert button for that. Buzz Clik May 2016 #26
God might be busy MFM008 May 2016 #5
So this god of yours, the one who said if you dont know me or acknowledge me you cant Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #6
Don't tell me. You were a literalist then and you're a literalist now. rug May 2016 #7
Which isn't that much different from the RCC's official position Major Nikon May 2016 #11
The people in here posting about talking snakes are not Catholics. rug May 2016 #13
If you can't respond to the point made, feel free to respond to any other you care to make up Major Nikon May 2016 #17
You're close. I made a direct response to a made-up point. rug May 2016 #18
Sounds like I was spot on then Major Nikon May 2016 #19
Except as to who was making up points. rug May 2016 #20
No, I'm pretty sure I got that one right Major Nikon May 2016 #21
Afraid not. rug May 2016 #23
"extra ccclesiam(sic) nulla salus" is still the official RCC position Major Nikon May 2016 #24
It is. And literalism blurs its meaning. rug May 2016 #28
You must have missed this part.... Major Nikon May 2016 #29
That odd little sect? rug May 2016 #39
I guess if you're going to be that inept, I'm going to have to leave bigger breadcrumbs Major Nikon May 2016 #40
That's only 36 paragraphs away. rug May 2016 #44
...and the document you posted was only 8 chapters long Major Nikon May 2016 #45
. . . . and I told you ecaxtly where it is. rug May 2016 #49
You told me exactly what I had already posted Major Nikon May 2016 #53
Although I'm sure you're feigning ignorance, I'll give it to you in teeny pieces. rug May 2016 #59
You do understand those two statements directly contradict each other, yes? Major Nikon May 2016 #60
Only if you're a simple-minded literalist. rug May 2016 #63
This is funny as shit Major Nikon May 2016 #66
Somehow, I don't think you're amused at all. rug May 2016 #67
And you're wrong about that too Major Nikon May 2016 #70
You haven't read the 8th through 375th chapters of St. gish Lordquinton May 2016 #81
So Mary was not literally a virgin? Brettongarcia May 2016 #55
There is disagreement about the former. No serious dispute about the latter. rug May 2016 #56
The rule is that if it seems obviously false, say... Brettongarcia May 2016 #58
That's a rule embraced only by those who can't be bothered with scriptural scholarship. rug May 2016 #61
So other than the bible, what exactly would we read? Major Nikon May 2016 #62
Why would you read anything else on the subject? Do you think a geology book would help? rug May 2016 #65
Why? Because you suggested it maybe? Major Nikon May 2016 #68
Sorry, I have to eat a hamburger. rug May 2016 #69
Deflection noted Major Nikon May 2016 #71
+1 for being smart enough to know when you're beat and just walk away. cleanhippie May 2016 #82
I'm all done eating, cleanhippie. What have you got to say? rug May 2016 #83
So on the matter of Jesus, Rug is a literalist Brettongarcia May 2016 #72
"It is claimed that Jesus literally, actually, physically existed." by the bulk of scholars. rug May 2016 #73
That's not really a hard claim to make Major Nikon May 2016 #74
No contemporaneous accounts of his life. Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #79
Walking on water is often takenliterally by Catholics Brettongarcia May 2016 #92
Well, the odds are high that when you type something here it is wrong or irrelevant. rug May 2016 #97
The subtopic: people taking the Bible literally Brettongarcia May 2016 #100
There is an intellectual dishonesty displayed by certain believers who sneer at the "literalism" Warren Stupidity May 2016 #99
No, the mockery is directed at antitheists who are wedded to biblical literalism. rug May 2016 #102
But many Catholics often do take the Bible literally Brettongarcia May 2016 #103
The dishonesty employed isthe claim that it is all literal rug May 2016 #105
If ANY miracles are taken literally... Brettongarcia May 2016 #107
No, those specific claims are subject to it. rug May 2016 #108
Rug? You defend a modern liberal Catholicism Brettongarcia May 2016 #111
the foundational myth is patent horseshit. Warren Stupidity May 2016 #112
The only patent horseshit I see is what you just posted. rug May 2016 #113
Rug? Do you believe in a resurrected Jesus? Brettongarcia May 2016 #114
Crickets. Warren Stupidity May 2016 #117
Resurrection=zombies Brettongarcia May 2016 #120
The Bible clearly says "Thou shalt not tempt God." DetlefK May 2016 #27
Someone should tell these guys.... Major Nikon May 2016 #31
Darwin beats Christianity in that case. Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #80
Except in say, Mal. 3.10 Brettongarcia May 2016 #57
You mean like praying for things? skepticscott May 2016 #104
Of course, there isn't! Iggo May 2016 #32
This poor thread was DOA. okasha May 2016 #98
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #106
So one thing I got from religion study classes is... northernsouthern May 2016 #101
This thread is conclusive proof that if a God or Gods exist, he, she, it, or they... stone space May 2016 #109
This thread is still alive... NeoGreen May 2016 #118
Yeah, there ain't. Iggo May 2016 #119
Still kicken' (nt) NeoGreen Jun 2016 #121
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»There aint no god, if the...»Reply #95