On a recent blog post, in response to a comment I made, the author of the post included an analogy:
Who said you go to hell just because you’re human? They lied to you. You don’t go to hell simply because you are born with the disease called sin. You only go to hell if you reject the cure.
“Well gee, I got gang green on my foot and they had to amputate my whole leg and I’m mad about it!”
“Well did you take medicine for it when you first noticed it??”
“No. I don’t believe in medicines.”
Who’s responsible for the amputation, the advanced gang green or the guy who rejected the medicine after he was told it would cure him?
My response is rather long and directly follows that, but I think this is an important point that often gets thrown out there by Xians, and looks pretty reasonable until one actually looks at it a little closer.
If god is the "cure" then wouldn't we be stupid to resist? Wouldn't it be our fault for going to hell for not taking the "cure" that's staring us right in the face? Oh, if only it were so simply though, right?
This is similar to Pascal's Wager, which I won't rehash too much here, I hope. But, it must be said that the Xian has no assurance that a cure is even necessary, or that their beliefs constitute the true cure if one is indeed necessary. There are tons of purported cures out there for the all too human fear of death, and picking one out of a hat has just as much a chance of being right as being born into those beliefs.
But, what the analogy really misses is why the victim is suffering in the first place. How did the patient get gang green? If someone somehow gave the patient this condition, would we not find fault with that person? If that person then went out and found the cure and brought it back, would we simply absolve them of all their responsibility in bringing about this sequence of events? Wouldn't we hold that it was their moral duty to try and correct their mistake?
In this instance, is it not god that created humans as fallible beings with sinful natures? It would only be god's moral responsibility to fix that by giving us a cure, and one without strings, like demanding obedience from us and that we conform to specific beliefs. Sorry, but this is an analogy fail, because it glosses over the important parts of the equation, namely god's involvement in the condition. That's part of the problem with a so-called perfect, omni-max god, the buck always stops with him.
21 comments:
But, what the analogy really misses is why the victim is suffering in the first place. How did the patient get gang green? If someone somehow gave the patient this condition, would we not find fault with that person?
Oh I am the first to agree with you. In fact I think the plan sucks. I hate it sometimes. When I was in the military I hated marching too. I also hating running 5k at 6am. I didn't understand it and I just wanted to get the $#%@ out of the Army. It wasn't until many years later that I finally understood why I had to do all that stuff.. but man... at the time. It SUCKED. So I am with you all the way on this point.
If that person then went out and found the cure and brought it back, would we simply absolve them of all their responsibility in bringing about this sequence of events? Wouldn't we hold that it was their moral duty to try and correct their mistake?
Errr IF it was indeed a mistake. But God doesn't make mistakes. Man does. CHRISTians (why do you X out Christ's name, by the way?) believe this is all a master design and it absolutely had to be this way or it couldn't have been. Jesus was not the cure for a MISTAKE; he is the cure for a CONDITION that man is--by nature--afflicted with.
In this instance, is it not god that created humans as fallible beings with sinful natures?
Of course he did. But you make fallible sound like a bad thing. our fallibility is actually our most beautiful quality. Thousands of the most beautiful songs ever composed were accidents because the composer hit the 'wrong' note or chord while he was composing. What a ghastly place this earth would be without mistakes and imperfection. Our fallibility actually enables us to appreciate God's Infallibility. If we were all infallible, we'd all be Gods! We wouldn't need God.
It would only be god's moral responsibility to fix that by giving us a cure, and one without strings, like demanding obedience from us and that we conform to specific beliefs.
Yes IF God had made a mistake. Sure. But he has made no mistake. We are the ones who have made the mistake. He doesn't owe us. We owe him. Why? Because he is GOD. He is the BOSS. We do what the boss says. That's why we call him "the man upstairs." Why is obedience such a hard thing for you to grasp? I find great pleasure in being obedient to God... same way I do in being obedient to my employer... my wife.. my loved ones. I embrace order, all of which comes from obedience.
Sorry, but this is an analogy fail, because it glosses over the important parts of the equation, namely god's involvement in the condition. That's part of the problem with a so-called perfect, omni-max god, the buck always stops with him.
ONLY if you think he owes you something.
Mark: But God doesn't make mistakes.
"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
God disagrees. According to popular mythology, anyway.
Mark: Man does.
So, contrary to your assertion to which GCT responded, I'm going to hell just because I'm human. I mean, you're not arguing that other animals go to heaven and hell, are you?
And yeah, humans make mistakes. So what? That means they deserve to be tortured for eternity if they don't bow down to the thing that created them to make mistakes?
Mark: CHRISTians (why do you X out Christ's name, by the way?)...
It's merely an abbreviation.
Mark: ... believe this is all a master design and it absolutely had to be this way or it couldn't have been.
Which means you believe that god was powerless to create things any other way, which means, according to you, christians don't believe their god is all powerful; which is a strange claim in light endless claims by christians that their god is all powerful.
But for that matter, if this is the best your god can do, assuming it exists, I'm not impressed. Of course, your god, in all probability, doesn't exist, so I need not concern myself with such silliness.
Mark: Jesus was not the cure for a MISTAKE;
So, contrary to the common portrayal by christians of the christian superstition, Adam and Eve didn't make a mistake when they ate the forbidden fruit?
Mark: ... he is the cure for a CONDITION that man is--by nature--afflicted with.
Interesting terminology - "afflicted." Why? Because in your very next breath, you say...
Mark: Of course he did. But you make fallible sound like a bad thing.
If fallibility isn't a bad thing, why did you just get done calling it an affliction? If fallibility isn't a bad thing, why am I facing hell because I'm fallible?
No common sense to be found here. No uncommon sense either, for that matter.
Mark: What a ghastly place this earth would be without mistakes and imperfection.
Wait... what? Isn't heaven supposed to be perfect? Free from mistakes and imperfection? No sin, no pain, gold streets, all that jazz?
Hahahahaha...
Man, you're a riot.
Mark: If we were all infallible, we'd all be Gods! We wouldn't need God.
Well, I'm fallible, and I still don't need god. What's your excuse?
Mark: ONLY if you think he owes you something.
I don't think he exists. You, on the other hand, are the one who thinks he owes YOU. I mean, certainly you expect to be eternally rewarded for all of this work you're doing in the name of this monstrous imaginary friend of yours, no?
Nosiree, not a shred of sense, common or otherwise, to be found here...
Damn Tyler, put the smack down on it!
Good job!
Thousands of the most beautiful songs ever composed were accidents because the composer hit the 'wrong' note or chord while he was composing.
Citation please. This sounds like a load of bollocks.
Welcome Mark.
I think Tyler did a good job answering most of your comment. I did want to touch on two quick points:
"Errr IF it was indeed a mistake. But God doesn't make mistakes."
This seems to be an implicit admission that god has intentionally inflicted us with the very thing that sends us to heaven. IOW, he has given us gang green.
"I find great pleasure in being obedient to God... same way I do in being obedient to my employer... my wife.. my loved ones. I embrace order, all of which comes from obedience."
Sure, order can come from obedience, but it's not the only thing that makes our society not fall apart. I happen to think that a democracy is superior to a monarchy...don't you?
Man, I love Gang Green
*whistles*
What's with the "hit and run theism"? It's all too common for theists to come, make assertions, and then never respond to objections raised to them. Why are these people so unprepared to defend their assertions?
They can't defend the indefensible.
They don't believe their positions are indefensible though (I genuinely doubt they would purposefully cling to positions they know are indefensible).
At least Leo would (selectively) respond to the questions posed of him, even if it was with more examples of his cognitive dissonance. I don't understand why the theists who post once and never respond to responses expect us to take their position seriously.
My guess is that they aren't interested in having debate, discussion, answering questions, etc. They want to simply proclaim to us what the "Truth" is and if we don't simply blindly accept it, then we are stupid, hard-headed, closed-minded, demonic, rebellious, or some combination thereof.
Kudos to you for not overtly making fun of the "Gang Green" silliness.
I absolutely DETEST Blogger blogs for their wacky commenting systems. Not only is the text area tiny, you can't even use "blockquote" to quote people, AND their is a character limitation. THAT is why I generally don't respond to comments on Google blogs. Hence, I have responded to Tyler's post here:
http://www.commonsensetheism.com/2009/12/response-to-tyler/
PLEASE get a better blog framework (and please lose the black background and white text on your main site; it is very hard on the eyes)
Translation: This blog sucks because I can't get my sermon on in less than 5000 characters. Tyler, I attempted to respond to your post on my blog, but, aw hell man, I've about as much common sense as a bowl of mashed potatoes, so it didn't work out so well. Here's a link anyway. If I can't make any sense I can at least be the class clown.
Happy New Year!
Okay Mark, fine, you struggled against your excuses to type them out, but could you give me one example of a "most beautiful song ever composed" that was an "accident because the composer hit the 'wrong' note or chord while he was composing"?
A comment like that shows an alarming lack of insight into the creative process.
Gang green?
I think he means gangrene.
Spell check software works.
have you heard of a parable, bro? NO ONE IS PERFECT... thats what no one understands. we fight to prove our point. not me, because YOU prove my point without me even talking. Every single thing you can think about(unbelievably small and big)...plus the quiet things that no one ever knows, is a parable. Oh, the depths and the riches of the wisdom of the knowledge of God. how unsearchable r His ways. He uses the foolish things of the world 2 shame the wise. God chose the weak things of the world 2 shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are.
Welcome Chris,
This is actually an analogy, and one that fails as I've pointed out. Calling it a "parable" doesn't save the fact that it leaves out important information in order to make an inaccurate point.
Tyler,
I read your exchange with Mark that he linked to, and I can understand why he hasn't linked to it on his main page. He's obviously petrified to have to defend the notion of eternal torture, which is why he dances around the subject and then clings to non-responses such as "god is love" or "they choose eternal torture!" It's all rubbish and rather obvious that Mark is incapable of defending his beliefs and also incapable of seeing the inherent contradictions as he seems to feel no cognitive dissonance from holding contradictory ideas in his head simultaneously (i.e. god doesn't make mistakes, but he does feel remorse for taking actions...but those are somehow not mistaken actions even though god feels bad for doing them, etc.) I'm not sure whether I should pity him or see him as just another lying charlatan for Jesus.
He (or the siteware) actually links to it on the main page in the "Recent Posts" section on the right sidebar, though I imagine the link will disappear with his next entry.
Meh, it was amusing anyway. Like watching a chihuahua invite a mastiff into its yard and then trying to defend its territory by standing there shaking and pissing all over itself.
:snort: at chris' myspace...
happy gilmore
Last Login: 1/5/2010
Mood: angry
This whole thing is entirely amusing, it really is. However, in his defense, I kinda respect one element of it.
One of my favorite Xtian contradictions is that they deny evolution, but they run to the doctor for AB's when they get an infection instead of the church. At least he held his ground, but of course, because of evolution, he lost his leg. Interesting though... Never seemed to occur to him that the results indicate the reality of evolution though. But, I am sure he prayed like hell when he had gangrene.
Post a Comment