A Fallacious Tear-Jerking Scenario (2)

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

NANCY
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.

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

TILL
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

A Fallacious Tear-Jerking Scenario (1)

From the Errancy Discussion list, 9-10-97: 

TILL
Even the suffering angle is fallacious. If Jesus was himself God, then he too was omniscient and omnipotent, so he had nothing to fear during his trial and crucifixion, because he knew that he wasn't really going to die. If he had all power, then he could have anesthetized himself so that he wouldn't feel anything, so if he suffered any pain, it was his own fault. Furthermore, how could a preacher know that "pain" would be the same to a god, whose ways are always higher than man's ways? This whole tear-jerking scenario is too ridiculous for words. 

MATT
I could not hold off responding to this post by you any longer Till :) What is ridiculous is your complete misunderstanding of what is claimed happened to Christ on the cross, and what the sufferings of Christ involved. Suggest you learn what Christians believe this was as you obviously do not have a clue based on your above comment. Once you have educated yourself on this perhaps you would consider retracting the last line of your above post as being down to your ignorance of Christianity rather than a true representation of the same.

TILL
What exactly have you answered? You remind me of a couple of Christian airheads that I am having exchanges with on another list. They claim that they don't have to explain or prove anything because their faith is sufficient enough to show that they are right. My contention is that the anthropomorphic nonsense about a "heavenly father" grieving over the death of his son is completely idiotic, because it offers no explanation of why an omniscient, omnipotent deity who would know that his "son" was eternal would have any reason to experience grief that could be compared to an earthly father whose son is killed. Blame yourself and not me for the stupidity of this scenario. To be blunt about it, Matt, who gives a rat's ass what Christians believe? The issue is not what Christians believe but whether what Christians believe is logically defensible.

Farrell Till