He works hard to feed and clothe his children well.
He is fiercely protective of them.
He is devoted to them and loyal and attentive.
When they disobey him or anger him he repeatedly burns them on their arms with a lit cigarette.
He burns them on their faces.
He burns their eyes if he gets really angry.
He makes them pull their underwear down and burns the soft skin on their upper thighs and he burns their genitals.
They just need to obey him, that's all; they just need to never anger him, and then he doesn't burn them.
They just need to love him and fear him and avoid bringing the burnings upon themselves.
Is what this father does to his children - with burning cigarettes - his "ultimate" or "perfect" moral action as a father?
Is he a good father?
@suzianne saidThen the analogy has gone over your head, Suzianne. It's about the morality of torture. I have no reason to believe there is a psychopathic God. Do you? The analogy is about the moral incoherence of the ideology that sonship propagates. I thought you would have 'got' it, but, alas, maybe your blurt about it being "stupid" is simply the best you can do.
Comparing God to a psychopathic human father is quite as stupid as someone telling an atheist that he's just "angry with God".
1 edit
@fmf saidAt least you finally came around to the comparison I accused you of in the first place. The difference, of course, is that, unlike the psychopathic human father, God cannot sin, and instead, is aggrieved by the sin of his children.
Comparing God to a psychopathic human father
I am comparing a God figure who tortures his 'children' to a father who tortures his children.
Not getting how you can say that God tortures his children.
In the first place, God does not sin, and his children sin against him. In the second place, the psychopathic human father sins against his children. This is the basis for my comment that comparing God (the God who loves us, the God who has provided our salvation) to a psychopathic human father is stupid.
-Removed-Again, such a God is not my God. If one wishes to attack THAT God, be my guest, but such distinction should be made. Without such a distinction, a diatribe against God I will take as an attack against MY God. This is the only God I know.
Nothing is "going over" my head, here, Ahab. What I see is an attack against God. If one wishes to attack a sock puppet, one should SAY so.
@suzianne saidSo, are you saying that IF your God were to torture billions of humans in burning flames for eternity, then it would be morally coherent?
At least you finally came around to the comparison I accused you of in the first place. The difference, of course, is that, unlike the psychopathic human father, God cannot sin, and instead, is aggrieved by the sin of his children.
@suzianne saidIt's still going over your head. The analogy is about the moral incoherence of the ideology that sonship propagates.
In the first place, God does not sin, and his children sin against him. In the second place, the psychopathic human father sins against his children. This is the basis for my comment that comparing God (the God who loves us, the God who has provided our salvation) to a psychopathic human father is stupid.
@suzianne saidI am comparing a God figure ~ who tortures his 'children', the threat of which, it's claimed, should leads to obedience ~ to a father who tortures his children, the threat of which leads to obedience. Do you believe this God figure in my analogy is YOUR God figure?
At least you finally came around to the comparison I accused you of in the first place.
@philokalia saidAh, so then, are you back with your self-parodying 'non-believers torture themselves for eternity - God has nothing to do with' "moral" argument, are you?
Does he allow them to choose their own fate..?
@suzianne saiddivegeester doesn't subscribe to the torturer God ideology and I believe that death is the end. Why are you so scornful towards people DON'T subscribe to the ideology being dissected and yet you never, ever have enough discursive courage to push back at the people who actually believe in and promote the eternal torture theology?
Again, such a God is not my God. If one wishes to attack THAT God, be my guest, but such distinction should be made. Without such a distinction, a diatribe against God I will take as an attack against MY God. This is the only God I know.