Wednesday, July 19, 2006

More tough questions!


Here are some tough questions for the Christian, depending on his or her particular theology:

Why is a supposedly omniscient and completely understanding God so barbaric, even allowing slavery, knowing full well the suffering people would experience because it wasn't one of his ten commandments: "Thou Shalt not own slaves nor buy and sell them for profit."

Why is a supposedly omnipotent God not able to stop the 2005 Indonesian tsunami that killed a quarter million people before it happened? If he had stopped that underwater earthquake from happening none of us would have known that he did and hence he wouldn’t have revealed himself in any ways he might not have wanted to. Since all it would have taken is a “snap” of his fingers to avert that tragedy then isn’t he morally responsible for it? If we were God we would be morally obligated to do so. Why isn’t God? And if he is morally responsible for it, then he wanted it to happen for some greater good. That’s right, he wanted it to happen. What is the greater good here?

—John Loftus


Here are some tough questions for the apostate, depending on his or her or their (for the transgender recreant) particular atheology:

Why is a supposedly omniscient and completely understanding God so barbaric, even allowing atheism, knowing full well the suffering people would experience because it wasn't one of his ten commandments: "Thou shalt not be an infidel!"

Why doesn’t a supposedly omnipotent God put all the sacrilegious scoffers on a desert island in the S. Pacific, and then send a tsunami to wipe them out once and for all?

All it would take is for God to snap his fingers and erase every atheist who ever lived. Why aren’t there more natural disasters to take the life of every whiny, little ingrate like Loftus or his thankless crew?

Why did God stop all those earthquakes, plagues, volcanoes, and tidal waves from wiping the slate clear of every last blasphemer who desecrates the world with his insolent impieties and profanities?

Why do we have to wait until Judgment Day to watch John Loftus roast in hell when we could enjoy a sneak preview of his eternal torment?

Life is so unfair!


  1. Good questions! If God wiped out all atheists then there would only be believers. Why doesn't he do that? Why does he wait until the judgment? He supposedly knows who we'll be, so why not take us out now? It'd leave Christian apologists like you without opposition and you could win more souls? Oh, I know, the wheat and the tares thing, the rain on the just and the unjust thing. That's a convenient excuse don't you think? Better yet, why doesn't God make us all believers? He can ya know.

    We bother you at DC, don't we? Do you want your God to kill us? It'd make life easier here for you.

    And to think in an earlier post your intent was to "dog our every step" and to bother us. The roles are reversed, aren't they? Maybe because you really can't answer us? But keep reading what we write, because it will take its toll on you bit by bit. We've already been where you are and defended what you believe, so there's a very high likelihood nothing you could say would make us change our minds. But what we say.....will....affect you, ever so gradually.

    Unless of course, you'll actually try to answer these tough questions of mine next time here.

  2. Hmm, if John was God he would stop the hurricane from killing people?

    Last time I checked, naturalism operated according to a few principles, one of which was that the strong survive and the weak perish. If a quarter million people aren't strong enough and evolved enough to survive a hurricane or beat the hurricane at its own game, then death is the obvious and expected evolutionary result. Also, naturalistically speaking, there is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty--barbarism or non-barbarism--because a mass of cells and cellular systems responding to stimuli know nothing about some kind of metaphysical imperative. But an artificial definition of what is barbaric or not is pointless anyway because it does not necessarily or even probably increase the chance for one's survival.

    So I have a better what rationale can John think naturalistically that a hurricane killing a quarter million people is something to be avoided, or perhaps, even morally wrong? And by what reasoning can he claim something naturalistically to be barbaric?

  3. Yes Steve, we're gonna take you down! You're really a closet atheist, we've been there. Once you wake up you'll come over to the dark side, Ahhh HAHAHAHAHA! Actually, Steve, I am your father Ahh HAHAHAHA! Now you've really got to answer some tough questions, like:

    Can God be surprised?
    Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?
    Why did God make mosquitos? They just don't seem to serve any good purpose.

    When you can answer those ones, big shot, maybe we'll talk. When you're ready to admit there's no answer to these deeply important questions, I'm ready to receive you over at DC. I'll even put your name under mine. C'mon Steve, whaddya say?

  4. Do a little apples to apples.

    The question is not whether punishment is immediate or later, it's whether the action is condemned. Athiesm, idolatry, "heathenism" is clearly discouraged. Slavery is actually encouraged among the Israelites. So the question is whether slavery is moral. The God believer would have to answer yes - since God did.

  5. I've already discussed slavery:

  6. So "john w. loftus" since its already been asked and answered why is it again you keep asking it? Oh that's right I forgot, you don't get it!

    Do you suppose, O man--you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself--that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
    (Rom 2:3-4 ESV)