Friday, May 13, 2016

A Fallacious Tear-Jerking Scenario (2)

From the Errancy Discussion list, 9-11-97:

Yes, Matt. What one *can* do and what one *does* do are two different things. That is why I find the xtian god so damned abhorent. He could prevent innocent children from suffering, but he chooses not to. He could have made himself known to everyone, and thus have saved countless millions from the neverending torment *he* chooses to impose upon those he is supposed to love, yet he prefers to torture his creation. He made his  own son suffer for the sins of others even though he is perfectly capable of forgiving sins without human sacrifice. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the xtian god is a sadistic bastard who gets his jollies from human suffering. If a human stands idly by while others suffer or causes others to suffer, as the xtian god does, we call him a heartless, inhuman monster. Perhaps we should just call him God.

What would you do if your son/daughter was being raped by a group of men. Intervene or stand back and watch?

I'd intervene, but let me head Matt off at the pass to show him that what he probably has in mind is going to work against him.  He probably intends to say that God didn't intervene when his "son" was being killed by a mob, and so that shows how much he loved humankind. If that is what he has in mind, let him take note that he has just proven our point. The anthropomorphic imagery of a "heavenly Father" grieving over the suffering and death of his son is shown to be nonsense, because any ananthropomorphic father who had the power to do so would prevent a mob from killing his son. Since the "heavenly Father" didn't do this, he is undeniably unlike earthly fathers. Therefore, it is fallacious to reason that the "heavenly Father" suffered grief as an earthly father would have done in the same circumstances.

Farrell Till

No comments:

Post a Comment