Flawed Theology

The Christian religion claims to embody all of Jesus's humanitarian teachings.  We should sell our possessions, feed the hungry, take care of the poor, and clothe the sick.  And that's all well and great.  That Jesus sure was a swell guy.  The problem is his dad. See, Yahweh is the polar opposite of his son.  Even though they are apparently the same entity -- simply different facets of it -- the characteristics of Yahweh are...a bit troubling.  Okay, terrifying . Here is a list  of six times God killed people in the Bible...but I'm going to highlight two incidents below.  Yahweh murders his chosen people because they ask for food Numbers 21 As the Israelites wander out of Egypt, they understandably get pretty hungry. They don't like what little food God has given them, and according to them, there isn't even any water.  The people get to grumbling.  I'm sure that was really annoying for God. The audacity of them! "Why have you led us up ...

I have been stewing over this post for awhile.  My usual method of addressing Christian arguments is by poking holes in them, by lining up logical fallacies that are undeniable, and by making cracks in the foundations until the argument starts to crumble. But this one's different. It's personal.   It can't be attacked head-on with a spear of logic. Instead, we as humans must gather up our senses of worth, identities, and individualities, and stand up to say,  I have value.  I am not disposable. OK, what am I talking about, you ask?   This all started when I began writing a post about all the killing that God does in the Bible.  In general, when I write a post, I research the Christian side of the argument -- to see if it has merit, and to see how best to refute it. I could not believe my eyes what I saw what one Christian wrote in defense of God.  According to John Piper: "It's right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God...

God killed way more people than Satan ever did.  According to John Piper, God is still pretty hands-on at killing people today. But virtually all Christian denominations claim that God is  morally perfect and without sin.   Therefore, any action performed by God are by definition moral, and are not a sin.  Meaning, it was theoretically moral for God to perform the following acts (and this list is not exhaustive): 1. God murders everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah, then turns a lady to salt (Genesis 18-19) Apparently everyone in the cities were evil, even the children and animals.  After God destroyed the cities, he turned Lot's wife to salt for the sin of...curiosity?  2. God kills all Egyptian firstborn sons during Passover ( Exodus 11-12) The final plague against the Pharaoh is the elimination of the firstborn son of every living thing--including cattle.   Presumably these firstborns didn't even have anything  to do with the conflict betwee...

A very common argument in favor of theism is that morality is objective and it must come from God.  For something to be objective, it must have a truth value independent of everything.  So objective morality depends on nothing--not the era, nor the place, nor the entity performing the action-- so by definition, it never changes.  If objective morality exists and it comes from God, then we should be able to see the unchanging nature of morality over time--both within the Bible itself, and when comparing the Bible to modern times. Let's see how this holds up! Old Testament Morality Slavery: In Biblical times, slavery was totally fine. This included not only indentured servitude, but children born into slavery, captives of war, and women sold into slavery against their will (as sex slaves).  This was all accepted.  See Exodus 21,  Leviticus 25, Deuteronomy 15.  No matter how much Christians try to account for this, slavery is a huge issue in the Bible....

The argument that we cannot be moral without God usually consists of two parts: Human morality comes directly from God Without God, there is no objective morality Let's assume God does indeed give us moral commands. Are these commands: Moral because God commanded them*?  OR Were they already moral before God commanded them? *This is called the divine command theory Obviously, those who insist that morality comes from God MUST say #1 is true.  But this also means that God subjectively decides which acts are moral.  He could command genocide ( and has ) and it would be a moral act, simply because he commanded it.  This also means that there is no objective morality--since God can decide what acts are moral, it is subjective. To avoid this problem, one might say #2 is true. But if God is merely commanding acts that are already moral, then morality exists outside of God, and we don't need God for morality. A good test to see which of #1 or #2 is true: If God commanded yo...

There are many people who claim that morality comes from a god . And they often say, "If there is no god, then why be a good person?" There are many reasons to be a good and moral person. To maximize the health and safety of people around us To treat people how we would want to be treated To minimize human suffering To exercise our natural instincts for compassion To earn the respect and trust of others To feel a sense of purpose To minimize the time spent in conflict with those around us To lower the amount of stress we feel To improve our mental health Many more, I'm sure...let me know in the comments. Let's revisit the claim that we can only be good with god. Does that mean: If there weren't a god in the sky watching you, you wouldn't be good? You are only being moral to earn some kind of reward or to avoid punishment? You would follow any command from your god no matter how depraved (since morality comes from your god?) Which person seems more moral: the ...

What would reality look like if God were real? Is this really where God chose to reveal himself? Let's make the following assumptions. The God in question is omnipotent, omnipresent, loving, merciful, and omniscient (the Christian God) The God in question designed and created the entire universe, including humans Which scenario looks more likely? Thanks to Ginna Baker and C.S. for your help with this post!