Skip to main content

Burning Puppies: The Basis of Christian Morality

 Let's "focus on what is, I believe, the major weakness of the argument based on the analogy between God and the loving parent. What happens when a loving parent intentionally permits her child to suffer intensely for the sake of a distant good that cannot otherwise be realized? In such instances the parent attends directly to the child throughout its period of suffering, comforts the child to the best of her ability, expresses her concern and love for the child in ways that are unmistakably clear to the child, why it is necessary for her to permit the suffering even though it is in her power to prevent it. 

In short, during these periods of intentionally permitted intense suffering, the child is consciously aware of the direct presence, love, and concern for the parent, and receives special assurances from the parent that, if not why, the suffering (or the parent's permission of it) is necessary for some distant good." 

William L. Rowe, "The Evidential Argument from Evil: A Second Look" The Evidential Argument from Evil (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder, Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996), p. 276.

Now consider how the expectation of a heavenly reward casts a shadow over the whole experience of being alive.  If life is simply about determining whether a person deserves an eternity of pleasure or pain, anyone who fears they are destined for the latter is incentivized to maximize their pleasures of life here on earth, while a belief the former is deserved casts life as a test and a trial in which a person accepts they are guilty, but have lived such an exemplary life as an inmate in the prison of human flesh that they deserve to be not only pardoned for the sinful nature which is uniquely inherent to being human, but eternally rewarded for having suffered through life as such a model inmate in God's little game of eternal life and death.

And why does the Christian God force every single human soul into playing such a game against their "free" will? According to the Christian, it is because he "loves" us. But this is like running a kennel in which you birth puppies for the sole purpose of determining which ones you will feed and groom and walk, and which you will throw into a furnace, and simply because you can. 

Welcome to the basis of all Christian morality. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is More Unnatural Than Homosexuality

I grew up in a family that is about as homophobic as Phil Robertson and the Westboro Baptists, only they're not quite as boisterous about it; at least not in public anyway. They have also conveniently convinced themselves  that their homophobia is really just their unique Christian ability to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" (even though these very same Christians adamantly refuse to accept that people can "hate Christianity, but love the Christian").  The sexual superiority complex necessarily relied on by such Christians is, of course, blanketed beneath the lambs wool of the Christian humility of serving "God." They interpret their fear of those who are different, in other words, as simply proof of their intimate knowledge and love of God. And the only thing such Christians are more sure about than that their own personal version of "God" exists, is that such a "God" would never want people to be homosexual - no matter how ma...
  The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter even by a millimeter the way people look at reality, then you can change it.” James Baldwin   

Why Are Republicans Pro Life?

Most people don't realize that the Supreme Court has been in the hands of the Republican party since at least 1970! In fact, even in the landmark case of Roe v Wade that legalized abortion, SCOTUS was inhabited by 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and the vote was 7 to 2. One of the reasons is that the Republican Party has absolutely ZERO desire to win on the abortion issue. And that's because abortion gives the GOP a clear focal point with potentially unlimited organizing power. And it's an even simpler message to sell than religion, since we are "pro-life." (if that was true, however, they wouldn't be actively trying to repeal healthcare for up to 30 million Americans, nor would they be so pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro welfare cuts, pro- social security cuts, pro- drone strikes, etc). The Republican party officially became "pro-life" in 1976, thanks to Jesse Helms (R-NC). The only reason no serious challenge was brought within the pa...