Yeah, I’m not sure if we can know the actual reason but Nefarious put a great spin on it. The whole movie is mostly a conversation between a psychologist and a demon possessed man in prison the day of his execution. I thought it was absolutely brilliant and well written. I suppose if someone thinks demons are fake and made up and Jesus just accommodated/deceived people/himself in casting out demons, the movie won’t hit as hard. But Christians who believe in spiritual warfare of this sort will eat it up. It was on Prime last I checked.
This is the scene where he talks about why they rebelled and God wanting “eternal gratitude” and viewing themselves as slaves…. I thought it was brilliant.
It strikes me that Richard’s plaint is little different than a fish complaining that God made it dependent on water. It almost makes me wonder why he doesn’t complain about us being dependent on food, water, and air.
This is what it amounts to from our perspective. I always really try to understand other people’s points of view and I think he is viewing our presentation of God as if He is some human that forces people to worship Him or else they suffer or are punished. Sure, such a human is evil and hardly worthy of worship. But that is just not understanding how goodness being tied into God’s nature works and it treats God like he needs us. As noted above, creation is a free gift of overflowing love. Chris Baglow phrases it this way:
Creation ex Trinitate is the heart of the Christian doctrine of creation. Nothing is unless it is created, and everything created exists because of God’s inexhaustible, merciful love. Machinists sometimes create because they have some need, as do some playwrights. But God had no need to create, no hunger to fill by creating. Rather, the universe is the product of love overflowing, and merciful love is therefore the foundation and deepest meaning of all things, which is the same mercy with which the world is redeemed by Christ on the Cross.”
I don’t always agree with Wayne Grudem but these thoughts from his Systematic theology seem helpful:
“When we affirm that God created the universe to show his glory, it is important that we realize that he did not need to create it. We should not think that God needed more glory than he had within the Trinity for all eternity, or that he was somehow incomplete without the glory that he would receive from the created universe. This would be to deny God’s independence and imply that God needed the universe in order to be fully God. Rather, we must affirm that the creation of the universe was a totally free act of God. It was not a necessary act but something that God chose to do. “You created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (Rev. 4:11).
God isn’t flexing or pining for our approval as if He has some psychological need to be worshipped like a power-hungry human. And Richard seemingly views “good” as something external to God’s being which is just one of the horns of Euthyphro’s dilemma which calls into account God’s authority and omnipotence. This dilemma was addressed above.
It has just moved, the premise of conflict has been actively promoted.
I think you have taken me out of context, and perhaps this is my own fault for using the loaded word “crime”, in which case I am sorry for writing it that way. I gave some reasons why arguments for ID and IC fail, and ID in general amounts to nothing more than apologetics. Clearly defending one’s faith is not a crime, or lack of faith for that matter.
But if you seriously think that being an atheist is a crime, then I really don’t have anything more to say to you.
I should be angry but i am not I am sad, because this what biblical and “hard” Christianity does.
I coud try and tear apart the above dicsussion about me by @Vinnie and @St.Roymond but it is a waste of time. Once they have set Scripture above both reality and respect for the rest of humanity there is no trurning back.
I apologise for my "Christian " brothers. They mean well, they have faith, but they have lost their humanity, preferng sirituallity instead.
Of course it is a legitimate to be atheist. That is the whole point of not making us automatic worshippers and slaves. There is no point in offering freedom and then punishing people for not availing themsleves of it.
What upsets me the most is this notion that if you are not recognising or worshipping God you cannot be good or understand what Good is. Scripture says otherwise but they conveniently ignore such minor details.
Your best course of action is,as you said, not to engage them.
Luke 6
“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
309
All of these were based on a nominally objective morality. Even the Old Testament allowed the Hebrew people to own slaves as property (including inheriting them) as long as they were foreigners.
Ok. As an atheist, that sounds like someone saying “The Altar of Not Believing in Bigfoot”. It looks like projection on overdrive. I have no idea what altar you are talking about.
