Bigotry in Christians, bug, feature, or neither?

[Kathryn E]

The idea of an unloving God or a vindictive God or Creator is so repulsive to our nature, because it simply isn't true, and we know this on an intuitive level.

I don't agree. The Bible itself makes reference to the vindictive nature of the Christian god -- admittedly, I'm assuming that's what you're talking about.

As for "so repulsive" or "knowing it on an intuitive level", that seems to me to be an overly idealistic view of human nature, given how many people glory in revenge and cite god(s) as a justification for it.  Apparently a lot of folks missed the memo.

Yes, they do, horribly.  Yet, we also all have missed the memo on some level.  I'm sure there was a point in your life when you believed or did something that hurt you or someone else for years.  You can have intuition of what's "good" thing to do all day long, but you also still have a choice.  You can still be ignorant.  You can still override your better judgement.

[Dom]

I don't agree. The Bible itself makes reference to the vindictive nature of the Christian god -- admittedly, I'm assuming that's what you're talking about.

As for "so repulsive" or "knowing it on an intuitive level", that seems to me to be an overly idealistic view of human nature, given how many people glory in revenge and cite god(s) as a justification for it.  Apparently a lot of folks missed the memo.

Yes, they do, horribly.  Yet, we also all have missed the memo on some level.  I'm sure there was a point in your life when you believed or did something that hurt you or someone else for years.  You can have intuition of what's "good" thing to do all day long, but you also still have a choice.  You can still be ignorant.  You can still override your better judgement.

The christian god ordered genocide, infanticide, war, revenge, slavery, rape and all sorts of very nasty things. How on earth you can say that's good is beyond me.

[Szuchow]

I don't agree. The Bible itself makes reference to the vindictive nature of the Christian god -- admittedly, I'm assuming that's what you're talking about.

As for "so repulsive" or "knowing it on an intuitive level", that seems to me to be an overly idealistic view of human nature, given how many people glory in revenge and cite god(s) as a justification for it.  Apparently a lot of folks missed the memo.

Yes, they do, horribly.  Yet, we also all have missed the memo on some level.  I'm sure there was a point in your life when you believed or did something that hurt you or someone else for years.  You can have intuition of what's "good" thing to do all day long, but you also still have a choice.  You can still be ignorant.  You can still override your better judgement.

It's those who commited genocide that (among other abhorrent scum) did not miss the memo. Space fuhrer killed almost fucking everything according to flood myth and even aside from that he wasn't exactly a chill dude. Christians who manage to be somewhat decent people are doing christianity wrong. Simple as that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, they do, horribly.  Yet, we also all have missed the memo on some level.  I'm sure there was a point in your life when you believed or did something that hurt you or someone else for years.  You can have intuition of what's "good" thing to do all day long, but you also still have a choice.  You can still be ignorant.  You can still override your better judgement.

No human is perfect, but let's face it, Christian theologists have been proclaiming their god's "perfection" for centuries. It just ain't there. All you have to do is look at the world around you -- and I'm not talking about human deeds.

Or you can just read the Bible and see the atrocious orders Yahweh gives his followers ... and then read about them following those orders.

I find the idea of a benevolent and caring god laughable. I'm glad it gives you solace, but it is entirely unconvincing to me.

[Dānu]

Like racism apart from religion, it's a question of relative proportions. Almost all white people have some level of bigotry towards black people, even if it is just implicit bias, the bias which operates below our level of consciousness. We don't normally refer to such people as racists because their racism is largely unavoidable. Not so for all people. Some people have significantly greater unfair bias against black people; it is for them that we reserve the term racist.

Likewise, all people are bigoted to a greater or lesser degree as a result of being human in a society with historical baggage and a culture which responds to progress in a delayed fashion. Are they bigoted, sure. But we wouldn't feel any great significance to this fact. It only becomes remarkable when they exceed the bigotry that they're likely to inherit as an average person living in a specific culture. The question is whether religion results in greater bigotry than what might occur in its absence. For that question, the blase assertion that "all respond according to their gifts" is just an evasion of the central question; it is not a serious answer. It is an attempt to bury the question, for reasons I won't speculate about.

[Kathryn E]

The christian god ordered genocide, infanticide, war, revenge, slavery, rape and all sorts of very nasty things. How on earth you can say that's good is beyond me.

I never said it was good.

No human is perfect, but let's face it, Christian theologists have been proclaiming their god's "perfection" for centuries. It just ain't there. All you have to do is look at the world around you -- and I'm not talking about human deeds.

Or you can just read the Bible and see the atrocious orders Yahweh gives his followers ... and then read about them following those orders.

I find the idea of a benevolent and caring god laughable. I'm glad it gives you solace, but it is entirely unconvincing to me.

I can't blame you for that.  I never found any evidence for a loving God growing up.  I just had a vision and felt God's presence and it was the most incredible thing I have ever known.  I would say, stop looking at the bible so much, and trust your intuition about what love is.  If God was there, what would he/it/she be like?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can't blame you for that.  I never found any evidence for a loving God growing up.  I just had a vision and felt God's presence and it was the most incredible thing I have ever known.  I would say, stop looking at the bible so much, and trust your intuition about what love is.  If God was there, what would he/it/she be like?

It would be a creator who thought inflicting children with leukemia could work inside the Plan™, one with no problems causing tsunamis that killed 275,000 people in a day, and so on. My intuition is that our world has very little mercy involved in it, and that what mercy there is here comes from the humans here rather than some numinous feel-good trusting of your -- not my own -- intuition. This opinion is a result of my 56 years of observation.

I'm really not interested in your unsolicited advice, either, especially as it strikes me as rather optimistic. If your god was here, then he can come and talk to me himself without availing himself of such an unconvincing messenger.

[Minimalist]

The christian god ordered genocide, infanticide, war, revenge, slavery, rape and all sorts of very nasty things. How on earth you can say that's good is beyond me.

Marcion identified this problem in the 2d century CE.

Marcionism was an early Christian dualistic belief system that originated with the teachings of Marcion of Sinope in Rome around the year 144.[1] Marcion was an early Christian theologian,[2] evangelist,[2] and an important figure in early Christianity.[2][3] He was the son of a bishop of Sinope in Pontus. About the middle of the 2nd century (140–155) he traveled to Rome, where he joined the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo.[4]

Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus Christ into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent Demiurge or creator god, identified with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament.[2][3][5] He considered himself a follower of Paul the Apostle, whom he believed to have been the only true apostle of Jesus Christ.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#cite_note-Ehrman_2005-2][/url]

Courtesy - Wiki

Marcion figured out that god was a dick so he separated him from this jesus character.  Marcion was way ahead of his time.

[Kathryn E]

It would be a creator who thought inflicting children with leukemia could work inside the Plan™, one with no problems causing tsunamis that killed 275,000 people in a day, and so on. My intuition is that our world has very little mercy involved in it, and that what mercy there is here comes from the humans here rather than some numinous feel-good trusting of your -- not my own -- intuition. This opinion is a result of my 56 years of observation.

I'm really not interested in your unsolicited advice, either, especially as it strikes me as rather optimistic. If your god was here, then he can come and talk to me himself without availing himself of such an unconvincing messenger.

Sorry.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sorry.

No need to apologize. Just take the time to get to know people before making presumptions.

[airportkid]

... one with no problems causing tsunamis that killed 275,000 people in a day ...

Can't assign that to a god's indifference.  Humankind builds its cities where a tsunami can destroy them.  In  any natural disaster that takes an immense human toll, the fault is humanity siting its cities and communities where a natural cataclysm will be lethal.  Should a god intervene and arrest natural phenomena where humankind has recklessly put its cities?  Should a "compassionate" god erase continental drift, tides, strong weather, fire, avalanche or volcanoes just to avoid knocking down buildings built right where nature can and will demolish their flimsy protections?  Should a "compassionate" god deflect the asteroid enroute to collision with the earth?

Ameliorating the deadly forces of nature is strictly on humanity to achieve - which we are doing, somewhat.  Universal recognition that, even if some god existed, it's humanity's responsibility alone to abate the dangers, might accelerate our efforts.

[Dom]

The christian god ordered genocide, infanticide, war, revenge, slavery, rape and all sorts of very nasty things. How on earth you can say that's good is beyond me.

I never said it was good.

You said he was loving. Exactly who or what does he love?

[Thumpalumpacus]

In  any natural disaster that takes an immense human toll, the fault is humanity siting its cities and communities where a natural cataclysm will be lethal.  Should a god intervene and arrest natural phenomena where humankind has recklessly put its cities?  Should a "compassionate" god erase continental drift, tides, strong weather, fire, avalanche or volcanoes just to avoid knocking down buildings built right where nature can and will demolish their flimsy protections?  Should a "compassionate" god deflect the asteroid enroute to collision with the earth?

Your objection pretty much removes a personal and loving god, and offshores it to blind nature -- in which case why posit a personal and loving god at all? I was, after all, replying to a report of personal revelation from a loving god.

Of course the death tolls from natural disasters result from human decisions. The question then becomes "why doesn't a god who traffics in personal revelation and is claimed to love us maybe make some revelation that over a quarter-million people can avoid death in one day?"

And none of this curlicue addresses at all things like disease.

If I could deflect an asteroid from killing creations I claimed to love, of course I would -- unless I loved the system more than the people. Draw your own conclusions from that.

[Cavebear]

Yes, they do, horribly.  Yet, we also all have missed the memo on some level.  I'm sure there was a point in your life when you believed or did something that hurt you or someone else for years.  You can have intuition of what's "good" thing to do all day long, but you also still have a choice.  You can still be ignorant.  You can still override your better judgement.

It's those who commited genocide that (among other abhorrent scum) did not miss the memo. Space fuhrer killed almost fucking everything according to flood myth and even aside from that he wasn't exactly a chill dude. Christians who manage to be somewhat decent people are doing christianity wrong. Simple as that.

Its sort of funny. The christian god drowned nearly all of humanity (and the unicorns) and then told Noah "Well, I shouldn't have done that; so here's a rainbow to make it all better".

[airportkid]

You said he was loving. Exactly who or what does he love?

I think a more pertinent question is what effect does this divine love do, and to whom?  How would the one "loved by god" enjoy positive effects that wouldn't happen except for the god exerting them?  Does the god intervene to prevent various calamities?  Does the god intervene to obstruct a choice freely chosen and substitute a better choice?  Does the god make you feel all warm and self-satisfied in situations you'd otherwise feel no emotion or feel negative emotion?

One of the most insipid religious posters is called "Footprints in the Sand".  It depicts a pair of footprints side by side along a beach, with a god explaining that one set of footprints is his, beside the believer's in life's journey.  But, says the believer, why at those times in my life when my despair and anguish was greatest, are there only my footprints?  You misunderstand, says the god.  Those were the times I carried you.  The message is humanity is wretched without a god, incapable of coping without one.

What a horrible sentiment!  If the allegory was a true depiction of reality, the times with only one set of footprints would be when the believer carried the god!

[Cavebear]

... one with no problems causing tsunamis that killed 275,000 people in a day ...

Can't assign that to a god's indifference.  Humankind builds its cities where a tsunami can destroy them.  In  any natural disaster that takes an immense human toll, the fault is humanity siting its cities and communities where a natural cataclysm will be lethal.  Should a god intervene and arrest natural phenomena where humankind has recklessly put its cities?  Should a "compassionate" god erase continental drift, tides, strong weather, fire, avalanche or volcanoes just to avoid knocking down buildings built right where nature can and will demolish their flimsy protections?  Should a "compassionate" god deflect the asteroid enroute to collision with the earth?

Ameliorating the deadly forces of nature is strictly on humanity to achieve - which we are doing, somewhat.  Universal recognition that, even if some god existed, it's humanity's responsibility alone to abate the dangers, might accelerate our efforts.

A few flaming "Don't build here, stupid" signs might have helped. I mean, if god created beings with a memory that lasts only 3 generations, and the last time a volcano erupted or a tsunami hit the shore was 10 generations ago, "it" ought to do something to help.

BTW, one of my favorite "proofs" that there is no god is the lack of flaming letters in the sky saying "I exist".

[airportkid]

... if god created beings with a memory that lasts only 3 generations, and the last time a volcano erupted or a tsunami hit the shore was 10 generations ago, "it" ought to do something to help ...

Nope.  Humanity doesn't need that sort of help.  Humanity has a memory that spans centuries, because we invented the means to record our experiences.  "I stand on the shoulders of giants" would be a meaningless phrase without our ability to communicate with writings, film, and endless art.  The "shoulders" are our libraries and archives, saving us from having to "reinvent the wheel" endlessly - and never progress beyond it.

Natural cataclyms are never a surprise anymore, only the date they happen.

[Cavebear]

... if god created beings with a memory that lasts only 3 generations, and the last time a volcano erupted or a tsunami hit the shore was 10 generations ago, "it" ought to do something to help ...

Nope.  Humanity doesn't need that sort of help.  Humanity has a memory that spans centuries, because we invented the means to record our experiences.  "I stand on the shoulders of giants" would be a meaningless phrase without our ability to communicate with writings, film, and endless art.  The "shoulders" are our libraries and archives, saving us from having to "reinvent the wheel" endlessly - and never progress beyond it.

Natural cataclyms are never a surprise anymore, only the date they happen.

"Anymore" is the key word in your post. We know about those things "now". We didn't centuries ago. Ask the Pompeians...

[Thumpalumpacus]

... if god created beings with a memory that lasts only 3 generations, and the last time a volcano erupted or a tsunami hit the shore was 10 generations ago, "it" ought to do something to help ...

Nope.  Humanity doesn't need that sort of help.  Humanity has a memory that spans centuries, because we invented the means to record our experiences.  "I stand on the shoulders of giants" would be a meaningless phrase without our ability to communicate with writings, film, and endless art.  The "shoulders" are our libraries and archives, saving us from having to "reinvent the wheel" endlessly - and never progress beyond it.

Natural cataclyms are never a surprise anymore, only the date they happen.

That doesn't address the fact that these "acts of God" (as they are called here in America, even in legal paperwork) happen at all. If this god is large and in charge, natural disasters belong to him too.

And again, you've not addressed my point about diseases such as cancer. What use might a personal and loving god have for them?

[airportkid]

If this god is large and in charge, natural disasters belong to him too.

That would make an insufferably boring planet to live on.

In any case, I'm not sure it's possible to construct a dynamic entity without any conflicting features.  I believe it's been proved that no logical construct, such as mathematics, can be paradox free.

Insofar as disease and cancer are concerned, the far more debilitating malady is aging, which seems an inescapable attribute of biological existence.

And humanity IS taking on disease and cancer, and other afflictions, without depending on divine intervention or supervision.

I think the assumption that a "compassionate" god would erase suffering reflects a misunderstanding of what suffering is.  Suffering is biology's red flags, signaling that all is not well, and existence will be uncomfortable until whatever's wrong gets fixed.  Without suffering we'd cut off our fingers in the kitchen, and make innumerable other lethal mistakes.  That not all suffering can be remedied only means we still have further work to do, but to totally eliminate suffering would inflict a much greater "suffering" of an entire greater order of magnitude.

[Dom]

If this god is large and in charge, natural disasters belong to him too.

That would make an insufferably boring planet to live on.

In any case, I'm not sure it's possible to construct a dynamic entity without any conflicting features.  I believe it's been proved that no logical construct, such as mathematics, can be paradox free.

Insofar as disease and cancer are concerned, the far more debilitating malady is aging, which seems an inescapable attribute of biological existence.

And humanity IS taking on disease and cancer, and other afflictions, without depending on divine intervention or supervision.

I think the assumption that a "compassionate" god would erase suffering reflects a misunderstanding of what suffering is.  Suffering is biology's red flags, signaling that all is not well, and existence will be uncomfortable until whatever's wrong gets fixed.  Without suffering we'd cut off our fingers in the kitchen, and make innumerable other lethal mistakes.  That not all suffering can be remedied only means we still have further work to do, but to totally eliminate suffering would inflict a much greater "suffering" of an entire greater order of magnitude.

Well, I think you mean pain. I see pain as physical and suffering as mental, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Cavebear]

If this god is large and in charge, natural disasters belong to him too.

That would make an insufferably boring planet to live on.

In any case, I'm not sure it's possible to construct a dynamic entity without any conflicting features.  I believe it's been proved that no logical construct, such as mathematics, can be paradox free.

Insofar as disease and cancer are concerned, the far more debilitating malady is aging, which seems an inescapable attribute of biological existence.

And humanity IS taking on disease and cancer, and other afflictions, without depending on divine intervention or supervision.

I think the assumption that a "compassionate" god would erase suffering reflects a misunderstanding of what suffering is.  Suffering is biology's red flags, signaling that all is not well, and existence will be uncomfortable until whatever's wrong gets fixed.  Without suffering we'd cut off our fingers in the kitchen, and make innumerable other lethal mistakes.  That not all suffering can be remedied only means we still have further work to do, but to totally eliminate suffering would inflict a much greater "suffering" of an entire greater order of magnitude.

"That would make an insufferably boring planet to live on". I don't mind a change in the weather, but avoiding a volcano might be good.

"I'm not sure it's possible to construct a dynamic entity without any conflicting features". I'll assume you mean a "deity". I could imagine one easily. It would basically tell us something like beyond the obvious (like thou shalt not murder), help us mature as a species, and prove to us it exists.

"a "compassionate" god would erase suffering reflects a misunderstanding of what suffering is.  Suffering is biology's red flags, signaling that all is not well". Pain is below-damage threshold. Pain is not actually damage until it surpassed. Pain is hot water. Danage is boiling water. Pain is what tells you to react before damage occurs. What happens beyond "pain" is "injury". Injury is what is slightly beyond pain.

And it seems your point is that we were created by a deity to "suffer", and should appreciate the sufferring. And then beg the diety (that caused the sufferring) to make us well from the sufferring that it itself caused by its deitude.

Yeah, good luck with that logic.

[Dom]

That would make an insufferably boring planet to live on.

In any case, I'm not sure it's possible to construct a dynamic entity without any conflicting features.  I believe it's been proved that no logical construct, such as mathematics, can be paradox free.

Insofar as disease and cancer are concerned, the far more debilitating malady is aging, which seems an inescapable attribute of biological existence.

And humanity IS taking on disease and cancer, and other afflictions, without depending on divine intervention or supervision.

I think the assumption that a "compassionate" god would erase suffering reflects a misunderstanding of what suffering is.  Suffering is biology's red flags, signaling that all is not well, and existence will be uncomfortable until whatever's wrong gets fixed.  Without suffering we'd cut off our fingers in the kitchen, and make innumerable other lethal mistakes.  That not all suffering can be remedied only means we still have further work to do, but to totally eliminate suffering would inflict a much greater "suffering" of an entire greater order of magnitude.

"That would make an insufferably boring planet to live on".  I don't mind a change in the weather, but avoiding a volcano might be good.

"I'm not sure it's possible to construct a dynamic entity without any conflicting features". I'll assume you mean a "deity".  I could imagine one easily.  It would basically tell us something like beyond the obvious (like thou shalt not murder), help us mature as a species, and prove to us it exists.

"a "compassionate" god would erase suffering reflects a misunderstanding of what suffering is.  Suffering is biology's red flags, signaling that all is not well". Pain is below-damage threshold.  Pain is not actually damage until it surpassed.  Pain is hot water.  Danage is boiling water.  Pain is what tells you to react before damage occurs.  What happens beyond "pain" is "injury".  Injury is what is slightly beyond pain.

And it seems your point is that we were created by a deity to "suffer", and should appreciate the sufferring.  And then beg the diety (that caused the sufferring) to make us well from the sufferring that it itself caused by its deitude.  

Yeah, good luck with that logic.

I don't think he meant a deity. A dynamic entity doesn't mean a deity at all.

[Cavebear]

"That would make an insufferably boring planet to live on".  I don't mind a change in the weather, but avoiding a volcano might be good.

"I'm not sure it's possible to construct a dynamic entity without any conflicting features". I'll assume you mean a "deity".  I could imagine one easily.  It would basically tell us something like beyond the obvious (like thou shalt not murder), help us mature as a species, and prove to us it exists.

"a "compassionate" god would erase suffering reflects a misunderstanding of what suffering is.  Suffering is biology's red flags, signaling that all is not well". Pain is below-damage threshold.  Pain is not actually damage until it surpassed.  Pain is hot water.  Danage is boiling water.  Pain is what tells you to react before damage occurs.  What happens beyond "pain" is "injury".  Injury is what is slightly beyond pain.

And it seems your point is that we were created by a deity to "suffer", and should appreciate the sufferring.  And then beg the diety (that caused the sufferring) to make us well from the sufferring that it itself caused by its deitude.  

Yeah, good luck with that logic.

I don't think he meant a deity. A dynamic entity doesn't mean a deity at all.

With all due respect, what "else" would a "dynamic entity" be? Galactus? Thanos? Thor? Me?

[airportkid]

Pain is a subset of suffering, and I meant suffering.  Psychological distress is discomfiting, just as physical pain is.  The discomfort drives the organism to take measures to get back to a state of comfort.  Whether the measures work or not has uncertainties because suffering is a coarse indicator, kind of like using a yardstick to gauge thousandths of an inch.

No diety designed suffering.  Suffering is an evolutionary adaptation that confers survival benefit over the organism that is not discomfited by injury or stress.  I wasn't kidding when I said that if we didn't suffer we'd cut off our fingers in the kitchen, and make other, often lethal, mistakes.  As a means of incentivizing immediate relief, suffering is terribly efficient.  Do not take this to mean that I think we should all suffer.  Not suffering is the ideal condition, but without suffering we'd never achieve an ideal condition, we'd be dead.

Dynamic entity is not a diety or supernatural, it's a shorthand for the environment we inhabit.  The environment is dynamic, not static.  Its dynamism functions in accordance with laws of nature.  No diety made these laws; they're the natural evolution of the material and processes that comprise the universe.  Such laws will embody contradictory or paradoxical features - such as suffering is a very efficient means of finding what's comfortable, and what restores comfort.  Quantum physics is almost entirely a set of paradoxes.