The Fragility of Religion/God

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Yeah, that is a briliant story We are told that if we "find God" then we will automatically worship him forever. But even in his own book, they get bored of him and worship something else when he turns his back for five minutes.

The funny thing is that they supposedly had first hand experience with the God character and yet they didn't believe it for one second.  So if they rejected what they experienced firsthand how silly is it for people thousands of years removed to believe it?

[Pyrrho]

Yeah, that is a briliant story We are told that if we "find God" then we will automatically worship him forever. But even in his own book, they get bored of him and worship something else when he turns his back for five minutes.

The funny thing is that they supposedly had first hand experience with the God character and yet they didn't believe it for one second.  So if they rejected what they experienced firsthand how silly is it for people thousands of years removed to believe it?

You have actually hit upon an idea I have seen expressed nicely in a book called The Atheist Debater's Handbook by B.C. Johnson, in which he points out the fact that the Bible tells a story, and then later on tells you that it is false, though in an indirect way.  The example I remember from B.C. Johnson is the case of Jesus, where his parents don't understand what he means in Luke 2 when Jesus refers to doing his father's business.  Keep in mind, an angel supposedly visited Joseph and told him to go ahead and marry Mary, even though she was pregnant and Joseph had never had sex with her, because God impregnated her.  That is a story that one is not going to forget, so the idea that Joseph has no idea what Jesus is talking about in Luke 2 is ridiculous.  The only way the story in Luke 2 could be true is if the earlier story about the virgin birth were false, as otherwise, Joseph would know exactly what Jesus was talking about.

The same basic idea applies to what is going on in the Old Testament in the story about the Jews quickly turning to a golden statue, when they (supposedly) have already witnessed miracles themselves (like the parting of the Red Sea).  If they had really witnessed those things, they would not be so quick to start worshiping something else, which means that the earlier story of the parting of the Red Sea must not be true, if it is true that they all started worshiping a golden statue.


In case you need it, here is the relevant story about Jesus:


Luke 2:

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

[robvalue]

Maybe the problem with Luke here is that the "Virgin birth" was not part of the original story, but shoe horned in later when they decided jesus was to actually be God. They then forgot to remove stuff like this, and jesus talking now to "himself" on the cross.

[Brian37]

I agree with the OP. It is also why people like Bill Maher get wrongfully attacked.

[JuliaL]

Maybe the problem with Luke here is that the "Virgin birth" was not part of the original story, but shoe horned in later when they decided jesus was to actually be God. They then forgot to remove stuff like this, and jesus talking now to "himself" on the cross.

I'm interested in seeing how Christianity morphs itself around some of the technical changes that make miracles not miraculous.
Flying for one.
Communication across continents.
Virgin birth is practiced frequently these days.  How come nobody notices?
Next will probably be age of mother at live birth extending beyond that of Sarai.

Does something have to have happened long ago to be impressive?

[robvalue]

Yes, apparently there was a very specific window of opportunity for things to be astoundingly impressive and obviously true beyond doubt. Now stuff is just "meh".

[Mudhammam]

If something is questioned or challenged even slightly, it promotes more questions and challenges unless dealt with harshly. Christianity in particular has some glaring inconsistencies so they must be particularly severe when it comes to people questioning their religion.

That sort of reminds me of this Steven Pinker quote I recently came across:

[Spooky]

If something is questioned or challenged even slightly, it promotes more questions and challenges unless dealt with harshly. Christianity in particular has some glaring inconsistencies so they must be particularly severe when it comes to people questioning their religion.

That sort of reminds me of this Steven Pinker quote I recently came across:  

Very accurate statement.  Thanks for sharing

[*Deidre*]

Pretty sure some version of this has been brought up before. But I've read enough whiny bs on the forum I feel it's worth some discussion. Put simply, god doesn't seem to have any balls. (god is a girl?)

The slightest challenge to religion requires the most ferocious response.

Reading/studying anything that contradicts religion is forbidden.  (Or anything contradicting originated from the devil, therefore no go)

If a religious person can't come up with good rebuttal, then we usually degenerate into derail or irrelevant tangents.

Why does god require so much defense? Why are christians (or any religion) so damn scared of other opinions? If your god is supposedly so powerful, why all the effort showing otherwise?

Followers of the Abrahamic faiths tend to vehemently defend their god as it is mainly because god is seen as an asshole a lot of the time. If you believe in the OT 'god,' then you will have to defend his actions in order to recruit people to your way of thinking. Which recruitment is a tenet of Christianity and Islam, for example. The more violent and cruel a god is, the more defending he needs. I'm a Deist now, and I feel no need to 'defend' god nor my beliefs. Because I think the entire idea of a god is unknowable, it is hard to defend such an idea. Just my way of thinking about it, anyway. I agree with you, that if God was capable of creating the universe, why does such a magnanimous god need ...defending?

[RobbyPants]

The slightest challenge to religion requires the most ferocious response.

I would make a correction: in the stories in the Bible, the slightest challenge is often met with fierce responses.

In the really real world, God apparently is content sitting around allowing countless challenges. His followers may or may not respond with varying degrees of ferocity.

Why does god require so much defense? Why are christians (or any religion) so damn scared of other opinions? If your god is supposedly so powerful, why all the effort showing otherwise?

Insecurity.

As much as they go on about all the positive aspects of God, if you press them long enough, the god they describe comes off as incredibly narcissistic with massive self esteem problems. Bonus points if they see this happening and add some addendum like ", but he's not narcissistic" (yes, I've seen this happen).