RE: Abusive Theology 101
August 6, 2013 at 7:35 pm
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2013 at 7:37 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
(August 6, 2013 at 7:01 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Is it special pleading if you to punish your child for stealing whisky from the liquor cabinet? No. Because everyone recognizes that adults, by virtue of their knowledge, experience and level of responsibility have a different moral status than their children.
That would seem far more damaging to God than the parable, since he chose to, in your theology, make us akin to children in comparison to him and set up a situation wherein our ignorance of good and evil was manipulated into ruining untold billions of human lives, not to mention that of other living beings.
Quote:Instead of some hypothetical parable, let's talk about the here and now as it relates to you. Did any of you pay money to hear the Gospel? Does accepting the love of Jesus cost you anything at all? No. It doesn't and it never has.
First off, bullocks. Not paying money to hear of something does not equate not paying a price at all.
If it turns out that what you believe of Jesus and God is a falsehood (as I do, with good reasons I think) and what you actually care about is the actual truth, then you've wasted (potentially) a large part of your life with things like prayer, questioning God on why he's done things as he did, "spreading the Word" and thereby causing others to waste a good portion of their limited lives (especially those who end up believing as this hypothetical 'you') and so on.
You stand to lose a helluva lot if you think about it. And that's not even counting all the harm to others that the religion puts forward as being commanded by God, with no actual explanation as to why it is wrong.
Quote:The problem is this. You think that recognizing God as God is somehow the same as deifying yourself and demanding another human being to worship you as a god. If you cannot see the error in that then how can you make a distinction between adults and children?
All that your objection does is, as far as I can tell, ad hoc that because of some aspect(s) of what God is, he is to therefore be worshipped and followed unquestioningly. Need I say 'is-ought gap' and ignorance induced by a tyrant?