Hi guys.
I am reading Paul Copan's book "Is God a Moral Monster?". He is a Christian apologetic that tries to defend all those disgusting verses from the old testament such as slavery, genocide, infant killing, raping and so on.
I am so startled by how far he goes to defend all the atrocities done in the name of Yahweh that it makes me think that Paul Copan (and whoever agrees with him) are the real moral monsters!
I was wondering if any of you know any good rebuttal to his book. All I could find was a blog post on infidels.org (which is nice, btw). Link: https://infidels.org/library/modern/craig_vander_hart/god-a-monster.html.
I am also thinking in, after finishing my reading, maybe to start a series of topics in this forum on this book. Perhaps grouping it by chapters. What do you think?
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
If a person genuinely believes that such actions are moral, there is no point getting into an argument over morality.
You can only say that such actions are contrary to the minimum standards expected according to international law, and demonstrate how such actions are contrary to developing happy, peaceful, and prosperous societies.
I wanted to get into more details, but to summarize his arguments so far.
1 - Indentured servanthood
2 - Old Testament laws were not perfect, nor meant to be universal and applicable nowadays, but "hey, come on... it was better than the surrounding nations"
3 - When it mentions about killing other nations it was a hyperbolic language. It only meant soldiers and religious targets. Never woman, old or infants.
4 - The law about mutilation of women's hand that grabs a guys balls during a fight was wrongly translated. The punishment is pubic shaving in public, instead of hand mutilation. WTF?!
5 - Even if infants were killed, God had the right to do so and the infants are enjoying heaven with God now.
6 - Not forgetting. Atheist are stupid and have a shallow understanding of the Bible. Also he mentions a lot Dawkins, Sam Harris and Hitchens in the book. I think it helps to sell better.
An action does not become "less wrong" because others are doing worse things than you. I have no idea why he would even make that argument.
I’ve not read the book. My suggestion is to read the reviews of it on, say, amazon.
I have not read the book. From the looks of it, however, I imagine there isn't much in there that we have not heard on this site dozens of times already.
I joined the AR just a little over a year ago, and this site is the primary factor that allowed me to finally shed those last few tenacious grasps of my religious indoctrination. And during my time on here the past several months, I have learned more about the bible/god/religion than I had ever imagined before. An incredible eye-opener, to say the least. At the same time, I have seen people on here do the most astounding feats of mental gymnastics and contortions in an attempt to duck, dodge, twist, turn, evade, deflect, and all-around avoid and/or defend so many of the blatantly obvious problems with their respective religions. Some (most) of them are truly mind-boggling, as any regular on here can likely attest.
Here is the interesting part for me, though. There have been moments on here where I have read one or more of these absurd theist "arguments" and I have thought to myself in silent disbelief, "Holy shit! There was a time when I actually used that very excuse myself." And I have to shake my head in bewilderment and wonder, "How did I EVER think that was a valid argument that made any rational sense???" And the worst part is that I was never even all that "dedicated to the cause." I guess it was just more of an ingrained reflex. I admit, it use to bother me quite a bit. Thankfully, now I just get a good amusing chuckle out of it. Therefore, in some ways I can rather relate to the mindset that will do whatever it takes to defend its "sacred beliefs". Still, some of the folks I've seen on here really do take that shit to whoooole new extremes. Disturbingly fascinating at times.
Tin-Man: "At the same time, I have seen people on here do the most astounding feats of mental gymnastics and contortions in an attempt to duck, dodge, twist, turn, evade, deflect, and all-around avoid and/or defend so many of the blatantly obvious problems with their respective religions. Some (most) of them are truly mind-boggling, as any regular on here can likely attest."
And I can attest to this. I could literally say if I had a penny for every time this has happened, I could retire and live off the interest.
rmfr
Why wouldn't just reading the Bible be a rebuttal. God hardens the Pharaoh's heart and then kills every innocent person in Egypt. How in the fuck do you justify that? God condones slavery, Exodus 21. You can own a slave, you can beat a slave, your slave is your money, and you can pass your slaves on to your children. There is no justification for slicing open the stomachs of pregnant women and dashing their unborn babies onto the rocks while God commands you to be happy as you do it. The god of the Bible is a murderous asshole. Anyone attempting to justify his atrocities is equally an asshole. That would be the same thing as justifying the acts of Hitler. You have to be an amoral scumbag to even consider the proposition.
Simple answer. How much of his apologetics can be determined to be made up shit?
The moment he has to make shit up to try and defend the assertions of a mythology, said assertions are not worth defending. Game over.
Here is a video by Thunderf00t that I found.
The Obscenity of Christianity
Now to read other replies...
rmfr
1 - My understanding from Exodus 21 (which uses the word slavery many times) is that only the Hebrew slaves had a chance of attaining freedom and even so, if they married while a slave, their owner could hold their family hostage to get a slave to stay. Indentured servitude my ample hindquarters.
2 - Is god not omniscient and all powerful? Is he incapable or unwilling to make rules that are relevant today? Christians already admit that he revised his rules once, why not do so again? If he is not willing or capable of doing so, then we can only judge his rules as written and I would claim that they are mostly obsolete and no longer relevant.
3 - Numbers 31: 17-18 - Kill all the boys. Kill all the women who have slept with a man. But keep the virgins for yourself. This is very clear and on point (Also, I doubt they wanted to keep the virgins to have someone to play backgammon with)
4 - I don't care. Either punishment is monstrous to me. Either mutilate her so she can't work as well (counter-productive, don't you think?) or publicly humiliate her. The verse indicates she is protecting her husband.
5 - If we consent to god having authority over us (which infants cannot do), then sure, he has the right to levy out punishments as he chooses. It doesn't make it less monstrous to punish infants with death.
6 - He is entitled to his opinion. I think it is fairer to advocate that his readers look up videos of Mr. Hitchens, Dr. Dawkins, and Dr. Harris and come to their own conclusions, but he is fully within his rights to call atheists ignorant and stupid. Stereotyping groups is pretty weak, however. Your opponent's attributes don't make you right. Your arguments and evidence make you right or they don't.
My two cents! Hope this helps!
These kind of hermeneutical gymnastics are so confusing to me. The lengths to which people will go.
It reminds me of people who have been abused by their partners but still defend them. It seems that something has changed in their brains that makes them incapable of seeing the truth as they are so desperate to defend the offender. Like speaking of us receiving God's cruelty because we "asked for it" and he is just. Or doing mental gymnastics to explain how a certain situation called for a behavior that seems indefensible, but just couldn't be avoided. How it may be hard for us to understand the offender's actions, but we can be certain his motives are always good. I'm curious whether there might be similar psychological mechanisms at play.
The claims of a mythology are unworthy of defense the moment he has to put up a fight to justify them. The game geometry dash lite is done.
GeoGuessr Free is an excellent tool for improving https://geoguessrfree.com/ map-reading and navigation skills. By exploring different locations using Street View, you learn to read maps more effectively and understand geographical features.
Copan https://retrobowl.wtf/ often argues that God's actions must be understood within their historical and cultural context. Critics argue this can lead to moral relativism, where any action can be justified by appealing to a different cultural setting. A rebuttal might focus on whether some moral principles are universal, regardless of time or culture.