Offending the god botherers

Or perhaps we refer to God in a male context for the same reason some languages use male and female nouns when referring to things.
Yahweh started out as a local god of Judea/Israel when every civilisation had their own pantheon. At the time (late bronze age) society was a patriarchy and women were seen as secondary to men. Even goddesses in Sumeria were seen as wives to the gods. So, if blokes are in charge, they are going to have a male god.
 
There is now, but only because people went there and sold the idea to hapless uneducated peasants.

Interesting that places where its spread the most without the need for threats and violence, are also the least educated and desperate places.

Lots of Christians in Africa. Not many in Japan.
I would suggest that threats and violence have been the hallmark of all religions.

Religions have been around for millenia and seem to follow the trace of human existance from the horn of Africa outwards taking bits of paganism along the way. It was perfectly natural for ancient man to worship the sun or an all important water source without the need of a book telling them not to covet thier neighbours ox.
I wonder how the Aztecs and Mayans would have progressed without the extremely violent introduction of Catholisim. It is only since the advent of monotheism that the real violence and corruption has started with relation to conversions.

Which brings me to the question. Whatever religion you follow, how can you be sure your's is the right one?
According to the interweb Christianity is the most populsr with 2.382 billion followers, which means over 2/3rds of the worlds population think they've got it wrong. Incidently 1.193 billion are classed as Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist.


 

Dwarf

LE
Book Reviewer
I can’t get behind this idea that if there is a creator we should be thankful for it and worship it.

Clearly what he/she/it has created is pretty messy and fraught with imperfections. He/she/it could fix these but doesn’t. It must revel in our suffering. In which case it is not worthy of worship or even acknowledgement.

It’s like me creating a zoo but putting all the animals in one cage. Pretty quickly things would turn sour with everything eating each other. I wouldn‘t then go; “**** it, they have free will, it’s their responsibility to learn from this.” I’d realise that my actions (and more importantly my inaction by not separating the animals) had caused this chaos and I should really do something about it.

As for Stalin, Hitler etc. I knew someone would fall into this trap and it’s a common response to Hitchen’s Challenge. “The Nazis were atheists and they did terrible things in the name of their beliefs.”

Well I’m afraid that simply isn’t true. The Nazis were not atheists. Mein Kampf states that in killing the Jews, they are doing “God’s work.” The very first line in the Nazi oath was “Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid” I swear by God this holy oath. The Wehrmacht wore belts with “God with us“ written on them.

Over 50% of the SS were confessional catholics. It’s no surprise that the first and only political alliance the Vatican has ever made was with Nazi Germany. Interestingly no members of the SS were ever excommunicated for the atrocities they committed. Except Goebbels. He was excommunicated for the heinous act of marrying a Protestant, which I’m sure we can agree is much worse than taking part in genocide.

As for the rest of the Axis powers, well Hirohito was actually a God and look at what Japan did in his name.

While extreme forms of Communism might eschew traditional forms of religion, they just replace God with a living head of state. All the other trappings remain. In North Korea they even have the holy trinity, of father, son and Holy Ghost, with a dead bloke being the official head of state.

And of course I’m not saying atheists are incapable of committing evil acts, but no one is doing it in the name of a lack of belief in God. Where religion exists, otherwise good people commit evil acts in its name.

Again, Hitchen’s Challenge is to name a moral action that a person without a faith could not possibly perform, and conversely, to name one immoral action that only a person with a faith could perform or has performed in the past.

Clearly we can name thousands of immoral actions that only a person with faith would and could perform. Just look at any recent Islamic terror attack. However I can’t think of a single moral action that is exclusive to those with faith.

Ergo, we are better off without religion. We lose nothing without it.
I can’t get behind this idea that if there is a creator we should be thankful for it and worship it.

Neither can I. But that isn't universal in all belief systems.

Clearly what he/she/it has created is pretty messy and fraught with imperfections. He/she/it could fix these but doesn’t. It must revel in our suffering. In which case it is not worthy of worship or even acknowledgement.

It’s like me creating a zoo but putting all the animals in one cage. Pretty quickly things would turn sour with everything eating each other. I wouldn‘t then go; “**** it, they have free will, it’s their responsibility to learn from this.” I’d realise that my actions (and more importantly my inaction by not separating the animals) had caused this chaos and I should really do something about it.


You are assuming you know the rules and the rationale behind it all. Any being/energy that could write the Universe programme will have a thought process beyond us.
I know you won't agree with this but it paints an alternative picture, assume our selves have an immortal part known as the soul, that this is our classroom or testing ground. Whatever happens to us in each visit or schoolday won't affect the fact that we have continuity and progress on a timescale that is extremely long in some cases.
If the idea is that we learn all aspects of creation including the results if we try the nastier aspects, then it changes the concept that we are here to worship. If that were indeed the idea then I'm sure there would have been an intervention as a race of controlled humans worshipping all day would make more sense.

As for Stalin, Hitler etc. I knew someone would fall into this trap and it’s a common response to Hitchen’s Challenge. “The Nazis were atheists and they did terrible things in the name of their beliefs.” Etc.

Sorry don't accept all of that, though I didn't know about the claim of doing God's work. But Nazism was more about the cult of the leader and the majority of Germans went into WW2 not for God but for their country and fuhrer.
That many were religious I think is a red herring, it may have influenced their leanings but at the end of the day they weren't in it for their religion but their country and because their leader told them to go down that path.
National Socialism and Communism under Stalin did act as if they were churches and their leader was exalted, that is true. All power bases that aspire to impose the ideas of the leader/cupula have acted the same throughout History, though in the past it was easier to claim divine justification, hence one of the reasons for the supremacy of the Catholic Church, actually the most deformed, heretical branch of Christianity.

As to the gott Mit Uns it predated National Socialism, and their oath "I swear by Almighty God..." might have echoes in this one if you look at the end.

I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

See we do it too, and I don't think that anyone would claim that at the very least since WW! that the British Military claim they are acting according to God's will, despite having a number of believers in their ranks.


OK, I'm going to go away and think about that Hitchens bit, it intrigues me.

BTW, I'm not trying to persuade you to think anything, I'm sure you'll stay an atheist, just trying to point out that all concepts of Deity/Creator aren't those of the Church, or indeed necessarily that of religions.

May the Force be with you.
 
Jesus died on the cross for humanity, so that you might be saved, and you throw it back in his face by calling Him a paedo.

Why the animosity towards Jesus?
He said he loved me.....but he never writes, he never phones..not even flowers or a card, the schmuck.
Friday, a plate always waits.. A schmendrik even, he should be!
 
main-qimg-bb56b431ceac21e299138eaca9c46877-lq.jpeg
 
So when are you going to convert?
Reason no 1, was he taking the p1ss?

Never heard of him before.
His name "Shake Your Booty" somehow gives a clue to his sincerity.
 

you forgot 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15:

11. God is really, really interested in the sex life of each human being.
12. God peeps at the sex life of each human being.
13. God says masturbation is bad mmkay.
14. God forbids homosexuality.
15. God appoints representatives to sexually abuse children.
Bonus - in view of the emeritus pope's latest confession:
16. God appoints representatives to whitewash sexual abuse of children.
 
Last edited:
Yahweh started out as a local god of Judea/Israel when every civilisation had their own pantheon. At the time (late bronze age) society was a patriarchy and women were seen as secondary to men. Even goddesses in Sumeria were seen as wives to the gods. So, if blokes are in charge, they are going to have a male god.
Hang on. You mean god isn't a black disabled lesbian? That's not very happy-clappy inclusive now is it?
I'm outraged.
Well, I would be if I was stupid enough to believe in sky pixies.
 

Latest Threads

Top