The Argument From Atrocity

[dagnarus]

The bible is filled with atrocities, from God ordering the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites and Amalekites, His organizing the Babylonians and numerous other nations to rape and murder the aforementioned Israelites, up to his consigning anyone who wasn't a born of the Spirit Christian to eternal torment. The fact that the God described in the bible is less than loving (healthy love at least), is obvious. And yet when your average Christian is confronted with these passages they are completely unwilling to acknowledge that there god is anything less than warm and loving, and this isn't just the liberal those verses aren't in the bible christians, nor the crazy ass Fred Phelps Christians. Is this just cherry picking, or is it deeper? Think about it, if the God of the bible is an evil sociopath, that doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, it just means that he's an asshole. So if you confront a Christian with the atrocities of the bible, your not really confronting them with evidence for the non-existence of God, your confronting them with evidence that the universe is run by a monster. This is a terrifying reality to face, especially when you consider that thinking that this God is anything less than perfect, could potentially draw this God's wrath upon you. I remember being in this position when I started deconverting, before actually. I realized that the God I worshiped was a monster, but all that meant was that I was trapped in a universe, which was run by a monster, a monster whom I had to love, or else he would burn me, whom I had to encourage others, to love, or else he would burn them. Could it be that many Christians, who seem okay with these twisted doctrines, that they know this is evil, but they ignore it, or push it down, because to acknowledge the obvious consequences of these doctrines, would just be to intolerable?

[florduh]

I believe it is Stockholm Syndrome.

[Shyone]

I believe it is Stockholm Syndrome.

If it isn't exactly Stockholm Syndrome, it's someting very much like it. I agree with florduh.

 

The relationship is someting like an abusive parent or spouse (or boy/girlfriend). There are declarations of love, great benefits, and terrible punishments; A deadly combination designed to ensure obedience and fealty.

[Petrel]

Could it be that many Christians, who seem okay with these twisted doctrines, that they know this is evil, but they ignore it, or push it down, because to acknowledge the obvious consequences of these doctrines, would just be to intolerable?

There are multiple options. In my case, I was troubled by these, and purposefully suppressed the doubts until I decided to settle it once and for all. The good news for me is that once I reached the conclusion that God was not at all what we would consider good, I also was rapidly able to dismiss his existing at all, since he looked more like an aggregate of myths constructed for the benefit of the leadership of Hebrew society. So I never had to agonize over the possibility of spending eternity in a heaven that was more like hell, or having to choose eternal damnation as a matter of principle. I think a lot of people have a similar approach to what I did--worry, then "have faith" and stop thinking about it.

 

Others who don't hold to literal interpretation of the Bible think that the Old Testament, where most of the problems occur, is more of a historical document and doesn't really tell us anything about God or what he/it wants. Some of these also pitch out some of the New Testament, such as some of Paul's writings. Some even pitch out a lot of the Gospels.

 

Being raised fundamentalist, my point of view was that if I had to throw out much of anything to believe in it, what was the point in believing in it in the first place?

[Wizened Sage]

Arghhh! What a horrible thought - that the universe is run by a sick, sadistic SOB like Yahweh. Fortunately, like Petrel, it seemed to me that God must be either good or non-existent. I'm not sure it even occurred to me that there could exist an evil god. It must have been very scary for you to have to spend time at this way-station on the road to atheism. You raised an excellent question. Thanks.

[Vigile]

I believe it is Stockholm Syndrome.

If it isn't exactly Stockholm Syndrome, it's someting very much like it. I agree with florduh.

 

The relationship is someting like an abusive parent or spouse (or boy/girlfriend). There are declarations of love, great benefits, and terrible punishments; A deadly combination designed to ensure obedience and fealty.

 

When I was an xian I didn't think deeply about these things, though I thought quite deeply over the NT. This seems to be pretty much the case with those who come here as well.

 

I think they put magic powder in the communion grape juice that makes you avoid looking at the man behind the curtain.

 

Nah, better yet, the pastor and every daily devotional out there only focuses on the touchy-feely shit or the make-you-feel-guilty shit.

 

What I don't get are the xians who come here who get it pointed out to them. How they can shrug it off is beyond me.

[dagnarus]

There are multiple options. In my case, I was troubled by these, and purposefully suppressed the doubts until I decided to settle it once and for all. The good news for me is that once I reached the conclusion that God was not at all what we would consider good, I also was rapidly able to dismiss his existing at all, since he looked more like an aggregate of myths constructed for the benefit of the leadership of Hebrew society. So I never had to agonize over the possibility of spending eternity in a heaven that was more like hell, or having to choose eternal damnation as a matter of principle. I think a lot of people have a similar approach to what I did--worry, then "have faith" and stop thinking about it.

 

Others who don't hold to literal interpretation of the Bible think that the Old Testament, where most of the problems occur, is more of a historical document and doesn't really tell us anything about God or what he/it wants. Some of these also pitch out some of the New Testament, such as some of Paul's writings. Some even pitch out a lot of the Gospels.

 

Being raised fundamentalist, my point of view was that if I had to throw out much of anything to believe in it, what was the point in believing in it in the first place?

 

This somewhat mirrors my experience in that once I realized how horrifying the thought that God actually existed was, I was willing to look into the reasons why God must not exist.

 

Arghhh! What a horrible thought - that the universe is run by a sick, sadistic SOB like Yahweh. Fortunately, like Petrel, it seemed to me that God must be either good or non-existent. I'm not sure it even occurred to me that there could exist an evil god. It must have been very scary for you to have to spend time at this way-station on the road to atheism. You raised an excellent question. Thanks.

 

This is interesting, this was one of the things which I was wondering about, it seems to me that the arguments from atrocity are some of the more emotionally persuasive arguments against, at least the popular depiction of the Christian God. However, I can't help but wonder whether, at least for some people, it leads to a situation like I just described, where the person essentially has to tow the line, or else. I was interested to see whether for some God had to be good, or non-existent, I also wonder whether the majority of religious believer fit in one camp or the other?

 

What I don't get are the xians who come here who get it pointed out to them. How they can shrug it off is beyond me.

 

I think it could be like this, let's say your married to this crazy nut-case, and if you don't constantly praise how wonderful the nut-case is all the time, he might get upset and toss you into a fiery pit, he also might toss your children in if they don't do similiar. Now let's assume this crazy nut-case is omni-potent and omni-present, this means that no matter what you do there is no where you can go to run from the nut-case, nor is there anyway in which you can reason with th nut-case nor fight him to prevent him from doing what he wants. My guess is that when many people find themselves in this situation they choose to ignore the evidence, because accepting it is just to horrifying. Given that for the majority of human history nations have been ruled by ego-maniacal despots it's probably an evolutionary trait.

[Franko47]

I've touched on this before, but it seems that some Christians that I've known like the idea of a God who is capable of extremes. Extreme vengeance, extreme anger....on the day of reckoning destruction will reign down on humanity, and the wicked will be destroyed, and..and...you get the idea.

 

I've done my own micro-study of Christians who are into the Rapture, Last Days, and so on, and there is an interesting theme with all of them that is undeniable- they have a secret contempt for all the "evil-doers" in the world, including mass murderers through to liberals who run the entertainment industry. There's also an anger that the majority of society rejects their beliefs, and a secret desire to see everyone struck down who doesn't fall on their knees before Christ, and especially their version of Christian theology.

 

We've seen some of the apologetics even here at this site try and rationalize these atrocities, but really, Gods are supposed to occasionally (or even frequently) pour the misery down on us; because we are evil and sinful and somewhere among us there might be a sodomite or two.

 

The last fundy I confronted with this issue gave me the line of, "Well, this shows how God really feels about adultry and worshiping false gods and stuff"...but apparently he's mellowed out now a little more; it seems that modern humans are given a different standard now that our ancestors.

 

The Angry Old Man is now on Prozac.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Arghhh! What a horrible thought - that the universe is run by a sick, sadistic SOB like Yahweh. Fortunately, like Petrel, it seemed to me that God must be either good or non-existent. I'm not sure it even occurred to me that there could exist an evil god.

 

Interestingly enough, it's probably more likely that an evil god exists than a good god based on the evidence alone.

[dagnarus]

I've touched on this before, but it seems that some Christians that I've known like the idea of a God who is capable of extremes. Extreme vengeance, extreme anger....on the day of reckoning destruction will reign down on humanity, and the wicked will be destroyed, and..and...you get the idea.

 

I've done my own micro-study of Christians who are into the Rapture, Last Days, and so on, and there is an interesting theme with all of them that is undeniable- they have a secret contempt for all the "evil-doers" in the world, including mass murderers through to liberals who run the entertainment industry. There's also an anger that the majority of society rejects their beliefs, and a secret desire to see everyone struck down who doesn't fall on their knees before Christ, and especially their version of Christian theology.

 

We've seen some of the apologetics even here at this site try and rationalize these atrocities, but really, Gods are supposed to occasionally (or even frequently) pour the misery down on us; because we are evil and sinful and somewhere among us there might be a sodomite or two.

 

The last fundy I confronted with this issue gave me the line of, "Well, this shows how God really feels about adultry and worshiping false gods and stuff"...but apparently he's mellowed out now a little more; it seems that modern humans are given a different standard now that our ancestors.

 

The Angry Old Man is now on Prozac.

 

I've definitely noticed this sort of person. I'd classify these as the Fred Phelps sort of Christians. But I was more interested in the sorts of Christians who read the old testament verses, and are genuinely bothered by their contents, yet think there must be some sort of interpretation or what have you. For example, most of the people whom I knew in my church, knew about the more questionable aspects of the OT, yet none of them would denounce it, even though I wouldn't consider any of them as being happy this sort of thing was in their.

[Franko47]

 

 

 

I was more interested in the sorts of Christians who read the old testament verses, and are genuinely bothered by their contents, yet think there must be some sort of interpretation or what have you. For example, most of the people whom I knew in my church, knew about the more questionable aspects of the OT, yet none of them would denounce it, even though I wouldn't consider any of them as being happy this sort of thing was in their.

 

 

I think some of this is a form of just sheer denial. It's certainly problematic for many Christians. You have to remember that Christianity is powered mainly by Jesus, and his conduct is impeccable, or so it would seem. To many Christians, the Old Testament is just a back drop of history leading up to almighty perfect Christ. It makes you wonder what would have happened if the Jesus story hadn't taken form, been written about, and become a major religion, especially after Constantine. What would have taken it's place ?

 

Also, the fact that wonderful and peaceful Jesus is now "God" in fact. That kind of washes away the whole atrocity thing. I think this is part of the reason that Arianism failed, that Jesus had to be elevated to the Godhead; just being a prophet wouldn't have cut it. Finally, God manifested in human form. That's a very powerful symbol. And it can really over ride a lot of problems with the Old Testament.

 

But the fact remains, there's a lot of cruel stuff permitted and even caused by God in the OT. I think some Christians just see this as the old, barbarian world, where God had to be more ruthless and strict. It's like that's kind of alright; it wouldn't be acceptable now to stone your daughter for not being chaste, or kill someone for working on a Sunday, but back then, man was more "cruel" and needed to be "dealt with". I think there's a certain amount of that kind of rationalizing that goes on, mainly because when I was a Christian those were some of the answers that I gave when confronted with this issue.

[dagnarus]

I think some of this is a form of just sheer denial. It's certainly problematic for many Christians. You have to remember that Christianity is powered mainly by Jesus, and his conduct is impeccable, or so it would seem. To many Christians, the Old Testament is just a back drop of history leading up to almighty perfect Christ. It makes you wonder what would have happened if the Jesus story hadn't taken form, been written about, and become a major religion, especially after Constantine. What would have taken it's place ?

 

Also, the fact that wonderful and peaceful Jesus is now "God" in fact. That kind of washes away the whole atrocity thing. I think this is part of the reason that Arianism failed, that Jesus had to be elevated to the Godhead; just being a prophet wouldn't have cut it. Finally, God manifested in human form. That's a very powerful symbol. And it can really over ride a lot of problems with the Old Testament.

 

But the fact remains, there's a lot of cruel stuff permitted and even caused by God in the OT. I think some Christians just see this as the old, barbarian world, where God had to be more ruthless and strict. It's like that's kind of alright; it wouldn't be acceptable now to stone your daughter for not being chaste, or kill someone for working on a Sunday, but back then, man was more "cruel" and needed to be "dealt with". I think there's a certain amount of that kind of rationalizing that goes on, mainly because when I was a Christian those were some of the answers that I gave when confronted with this issue.

 

Yes, but I'm not so much interested in what the rationalizations are. I'm more interested in why the rationalizations are made. For example, did you actually think that the cruelty of God, shown in both the OT and NT, was actually justified and moral, rationalizations not withstanding? Did you assume in those cases where you didn't agree, that he must have known better than you? Or where you convinced that the Christian God, was the one true God of all the universe, and as such your survival instincts led you to accept his conduct as moral, and to make rationalizations for him, as it would be dangerous to go against him?

[Jedah]

http://avangelism.com/blog/lexicon/self-projection-as-god/

[NotBlinded]

Yes, but I'm not so much interested in what the rationalizations are. I'm more interested in why the rationalizations are made. For example, did you actually think that the cruelty of God, shown in both the OT and NT, was actually justified and moral, rationalizations not withstanding? Did you assume in those cases where you didn't agree, that he must have known better than you? Or where you convinced that the Christian God, was the one true God of all the universe, and as such your survival instincts led you to accept his conduct as moral, and to make rationalizations for him, as it would be dangerous to go against him?

You know, come to think of it, I never really ever thought about the ones that were killed. My thoughts were always with the "winners" as being right. It's like when we watch a movie, how often to we actually empathize with the "bad" guys? The military is also good at making the enemy seem unhuman somehow in order for us to be able to kill them. It's mental manipulation. I think it is slowly coming about that the supposed bad guys are human too.

[Shyone]

Yes, but I'm not so much interested in what the rationalizations are. I'm more interested in why the rationalizations are made. For example, did you actually think that the cruelty of God, shown in both the OT and NT, was actually justified and moral, rationalizations not withstanding? Did you assume in those cases where you didn't agree, that he must have known better than you? Or where you convinced that the Christian God, was the one true God of all the universe, and as such your survival instincts led you to accept his conduct as moral, and to make rationalizations for him, as it would be dangerous to go against him?

You know, come to think of it, I never really ever thought about the ones that were killed. My thoughts were always with the "winners" as being right. It's like when we watch a movie, how often to we actually empathize with the "bad" guys? The military is also good at making the enemy seem unhuman somehow in order for us to be able to kill them. It's mental manipulation. I think it is slowly coming about that the supposed bad guys are human too.

That's it!

 

I was born in the wrong era. I was raised to be open to all ideas, but make my own decisions. By the time I read the OT, I had started thinking about visualizing what was happening like it was a movie. Slaughter. Women and children chopped up by invading marauders. Blood on the walls and spilling on the floor. The look of fear in the eyes of those that waited, and hid. The lack of understanding of the child as he was about to die...

 

And that was just about the last straw. Demonizing an entire people is wrong. Sure, there are times when we must protect ourselves, fight back, or even attack, but modern rules of war prohibit the killing of noncombatants and prisoners of war.

 

God should have included a copy of the Geneva Conventions in Genesis.

[par4dcourse]

I just had a xian argue with perfect sincerety that Psalm 137 (the one about dashing the little ones against the rocks) was OK because "it was talking about the Babylonians, and they were evil and wicked."

Some days I'm so glad I'm not xian.

[Shyone]

I just had a xian argue with perfect sincerety that Psalm 137 (the one about dashing the little ones against the rocks) was OK because "it was talking about the Babylonians, and they were evil and wicked."

Some days I'm so glad I'm not xian.

This does bring up some interesting points.

 

1. What are the criteria for determining evil babies from good babies?

a. Race

b. Country of birth

c. Religion of parents

2. Which babies today should have their heads bashed against the rocks?

3. If another people consider us to be evil and wicked, is it ok for them to bash our children's heads against the rocks?

4. If a baby is found, but the parents are unknown, should the baby's head be bashed against the rocks just in case the baby is from an evil and wicked people?

[Vixentrox]

I just had a xian argue with perfect sincerety that Psalm 137 (the one about dashing the little ones against the rocks) was OK because "it was talking about the Babylonians, and they were evil and wicked."

Some days I'm so glad I'm not xian.

This does bring up some interesting points.

 

1. What are the criteria for determining evil babies from good babies?

a. Race

b. Country of birth

c. Religion of parents

2. Which babies today should have their heads bashed against the rocks?

3. If another people consider us to be evil and wicked, is it ok for them to bash our children's heads against the rocks?

4. If a baby is found, but the parents are unknown, should the baby's head be bashed against the rocks just in case the baby is from an evil and wicked people?

Well, obviously any unbaptized baby, no matter race, nationality or religion, is evil so is subject to head bashing!

[Franko47]

I think some of this is a form of just sheer denial. It's certainly problematic for many Christians. You have to remember that Christianity is powered mainly by Jesus, and his conduct is impeccable, or so it would seem. To many Christians, the Old Testament is just a back drop of history leading up to almighty perfect Christ. It makes you wonder what would have happened if the Jesus story hadn't taken form, been written about, and become a major religion, especially after Constantine. What would have taken it's place ?

 

Also, the fact that wonderful and peaceful Jesus is now "God" in fact. That kind of washes away the whole atrocity thing. I think this is part of the reason that Arianism failed, that Jesus had to be elevated to the Godhead; just being a prophet wouldn't have cut it. Finally, God manifested in human form. That's a very powerful symbol. And it can really over ride a lot of problems with the Old Testament.

 

But the fact remains, there's a lot of cruel stuff permitted and even caused by God in the OT. I think some Christians just see this as the old, barbarian world, where God had to be more ruthless and strict. It's like that's kind of alright; it wouldn't be acceptable now to stone your daughter for not being chaste, or kill someone for working on a Sunday, but back then, man was more "cruel" and needed to be "dealt with". I think there's a certain amount of that kind of rationalizing that goes on, mainly because when I was a Christian those were some of the answers that I gave when confronted with this issue.

 

Yes, but I'm not so much interested in what the rationalizations are. I'm more interested in why the rationalizations are made. For example, did you actually think that the cruelty of God, shown in both the OT and NT, was actually justified and moral, rationalizations not withstanding? Did you assume in those cases where you didn't agree, that he must have known better than you? Or where you convinced that the Christian God, was the one true God of all the universe, and as such your survival instincts led you to accept his conduct as moral, and to make rationalizations for him, as it would be dangerous to go against him?

 

 

It obviously struck me as tragic and unfortunate, but that idealism that "God is always right", or "always knows what he's doing" was pretty strong. NotBlinded and Shyone put it pretty nicely, in that there was always a sense of "detachment" to the vivid reality of what it must have been like, and again, it's ancient antiquated stuff that happened during a "brutal" era, and so on.

[Petrel]

Yes, but I'm not so much interested in what the rationalizations are. I'm more interested in why the rationalizations are made. For example, did you actually think that the cruelty of God, shown in both the OT and NT, was actually justified and moral, rationalizations not withstanding? Did you assume in those cases where you didn't agree, that he must have known better than you? Or where you convinced that the Christian God, was the one true God of all the universe, and as such your survival instincts led you to accept his conduct as moral, and to make rationalizations for him, as it would be dangerous to go against him?

I thought it must be justified and moral, but I couldn't see how it was. I would have periods being quite anxious about this issue, then figure, "Some day maybe I'll understand" and leave it be. I've had people tell me that the Canaanites were uniformly evil (but the babies?), all half-demon and irredeemable, or that they didn't really kill the kids (hello! contradicting Word of God here!), that he killed them now to save them committing sins later that would damn them (after I'd started deconverting I suggested to this person that we kill all children at birth to make sure they do not sin, since God loathes all sins), or that it all never happened in the first place (from more liberal Christians, but I didn't think God was incompetent enough to let the OT get published if it were full of inaccuracies). I got a lot of "have faith" answers when I'd talk to people about this.

 

It wasn't a matter of thinking that God would beat me up if I didn't put up with it. It was more that I did have faith that God was good and felt I was just missing something that would make it make sense. Since that something was not immediately obvious, I put off thinking about it.

 

Ultimately I decided having faith was all very well and good, but on a question of the moral foundations of my religion the answers must be there, so I sat down to search them out and settle the question. Ends up the answers led in an unexpected direction.

[florduh]

Yes, but I'm not so much interested in what the rationalizations are. I'm more interested in why the rationalizations are made.

 

It is akin to Stockholm Syndrome. It's a psychological strategy for survival, not a reasoned decision:

 

"Every syndrome has symptoms or behaviors and Stockholm Syndrome is no exception. While a clear-cut list has not been established due to varying opinions by researchers and experts, several of these features will be present:

 

* Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller

* Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support them or win their release

* Support of the abuser's reasons and behaviors

* Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim

* Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser

* Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment"

 

I think that pretty much nails it for explaining the slavish devotion to an abusive religion as well as all the other abusive relationships people endure for years on end.